Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp philos:


rwp@1Corinthians:1:19 @{I will destroy} (\apol“\). Future active indicative of \apollumi\. Attic future for \apoles“\. Quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:29:14| (LXX). The failure of worldly statesmanship in the presence of Assyrian invasion Paul applies to his argument with force. The wisdom of the wise is often folly, the understanding of the understanding is often rejected. There is such a thing as the ignorance of the learned, the wisdom of the simple-minded. God's wisdom rises in the Cross sheer above human philosophizing which is still scoffing at the Cross of Christ, the consummation of God's power.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:20 @{Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?} (\Pou sophos; pou grammateus; pou sunzˆtˆtˆs tou ai“nos toutou;\). Paul makes use of strkjv@Isaiah:33:18| without exact quotation. The sudden retreat of Sennacherib with the annihilation of his officers. "On the tablet of Shalmaneser in the Assyrian Gallery of the British Museum there is a surprisingly exact picture of the scene described by Isaiah" (Robertson and Plummer). Note the absence of the Greek article in each of these rhetorical questions though the idea is clearly definite. Probably \sophos\ refers to the Greek philosopher, \grammateus\ to the Jewish scribe and \sunzˆtˆtˆs\ suits both the Greek and the Jewish disputant and doubter (Acts:6:9; strkjv@9:29; strkjv@17:18; strkjv@28:29|). There is a note of triumph in these questions. The word \sunzˆtˆtˆs\ occurs here alone in the N.T. and elsewhere only in Ignatius, Eph. 18 quoting this passage, but the papyri give the verb \sunzˆte“\ for disputing (questioning together). {Hath not God made foolish?} (\ouchi em“ranen ho theos;\). Strong negative form with aorist active indicative difficult of precise translation, "Did not God make foolish?" The old verb \m“rain“\ from \m“ros\, foolish, was to be foolish, to act foolish, then to prove one foolish as here or to make foolish as in strkjv@Romans:1:22|. In strkjv@Matthew:5:13; strkjv@Luke:14:34| it is used of salt that is tasteless. {World} (\kosmou\). Synonymous with \ai“n\ (age), orderly arrangement, then the non-Christian cosmos.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:21 @{Seeing that} (\epeidˆ\). Since (\epei\ and \dˆ\) with explanatory \gar\. {Through its wisdom} (\dia tˆs sophias\). Article here as possessive. The two wisdoms contrasted. {Knew not God} (\ouk egn“\). Failed to know, second aorist (effective) active indicative of \gin“sk“\, solemn dirge of doom on both Greek philosophy and Jewish theology that failed to know God. Has modern philosophy done better? There is today even a godless theology (Humanism). "Now that God's wisdom has reduced the self-wise world to ignorance" (Findlay). {Through the foolishness of the preaching} (\dia tˆs m“rias tou kˆrugmatos\). Perhaps "proclamation" is the idea, for it is not \kˆruxis\, the act of heralding, but \kˆrugma\, the message heralded or the proclamation as in verse 23|. The metaphor is that of the herald proclaiming the approach of the king (Matthew:3:1; strkjv@4:17|). See also \kˆrugma\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:4; strkjv@2Timothy:4:17|. The proclamation of the Cross seemed foolishness to the wiseacres then (and now), but it is consummate wisdom, God's wisdom and good-pleasure (\eudokˆsan\). The foolishness of preaching is not the preaching of foolishness. {To save them that believe} (\s“sai tous pisteuontas\). This is the heart of God's plan of redemption, the proclamation of salvation for all those who trust Jesus Christ on the basis of his death for sin on the Cross. The mystery-religions all offered salvation by initiation and ritual as the Pharisees did by ceremonialism. Christianity reaches the heart directly by trust in Christ as the Saviour. It is God's wisdom.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:23 @{But we preach Christ crucified} (\hˆmeis de kˆrussomen Christon estaur“menon\). Grammatically stated as a partial result (\de\) of the folly of both Jews and Greeks, actually in sharp contrast. We proclaim, "we do not discuss or dispute" (Lightfoot). Christ (Messiah) as crucified, as in strkjv@2:2; strkjv@Galatians:3:1|, "not a sign-shower nor a philosopher" (Vincent). Perfect passive participle of \stauro“\. {Stumbling-block} (\skandalon\). Papyri examples mean trap or snare which here tripped the Jews who wanted a conquering Messiah with a world empire, not a condemned and crucified one (Matthew:27:42; strkjv@Luke:24:21|). {Foolishness} (\m“rian\). Folly as shown by their conduct in Athens (Acts:17:32|).

rwp@1Corinthians:1:26 @{Behold} (\blepete\). Same form for imperative present active plural and indicative. Either makes sense as in strkjv@John:5:39| \eraunate\ and strkjv@14:1| \pisteuete\. {Calling} (\klˆsin\). The act of calling by God, based not on the external condition of those called (\klˆtoi\, verse 2|), but on God's sovereign love. It is a clinching illustration of Paul's argument, an _argumentum ad hominen_. {How that} (\hoti\). Explanatory apposition to \klˆsin\. {After the flesh} (\kata sarka\). According to the standards of the flesh and to be used not only with \sophoi\ (wise, philosophers), but also \dunatoi\ (men of dignity and power), \eugeneis\ (noble, high birth), the three claims to aristocracy (culture, power, birth). {Are called}. Not in the Greek, but probably to be supplied from the idea in \klˆsin\.

rwp@1Corinthians:2:1 @{Not with excellency of speech or of wisdom} (\ou kath' huperochˆn logou ˆ sophias\). \Huperochˆ\ is an old word from the verb \huperech“\ (Phillipians:4:7|) and means preeminence, rising above. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1Timothy:2:2| of magistrates. It occurs in inscriptions of Pergamum for persons of position (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 255). Here it means excess or superfluity, "not in excellence of rhetorical display or of philosophical subtlety" (Lightfoot). {The mystery of God} (\to mustˆrion tou theou\). Songs:Aleph A C Copt. like strkjv@2:7|, but B D L P read \marturion\ like strkjv@1:6|. Probably {mystery} is correct. Christ crucified is the mystery of God (Colossians:2:2|). Paul did not hesitate to appropriate this word in common use among the mystery religions, but he puts into it his ideas, not those in current use. It is an old word from \mue“\, to close, to shut, to initiate (Phillipians:4:12|). This mystery was once hidden from the ages (Colossians:1:26|), but is now made plain in Christ (1Corinthians:2:7; strkjv@Romans:16:25f.|). The papyri give many illustrations of the use of the word for secret doctrines known only to the initiated (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_).

rwp@1Corinthians:2:4 @{Not in persuasive words of wisdom} (\ouk en pithois sophias logois\). This looks like a false disclaimer or mock modesty, for surely the preacher desires to be persuasive. This adjective \pithos\ (MSS. \peithos\) has not yet been found elsewhere. It seems to be formed directly from \peith“\, to persuade, as \pheidos\ (\phidos\) is from \pheidomai\, to spare. The old Greek form \pithanos\ is common enough and is used by Josephus (_Ant_. VIII. 9. 1) of "the plausible words of the lying prophet" in strkjv@1Kings:13|. The kindred word \pithanologia\ occurs in strkjv@Colossians:2:4| for the specious and plausible Gnostic philosophers. And gullible people are easy marks for these plausible pulpiteers. Corinth put a premium on the veneer of false rhetoric and thin thinking. {But in demonstration} (\all' en apodeixei\). In contrast with the {plausibility} just mentioned. This word, though an old one from \apodeiknumi\, to show forth, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. {Spirit} (\pneuma\) here can be the Holy Spirit or inward spirit as opposed to superficial expression and {power} (\dunamis\) is moral power rather than intellectual acuteness (cf. strkjv@1:18|).

rwp@1Corinthians:2:5 @{That your faith should not stand} (\hina hˆ pistis hum“n mˆ ˆi\). Purpose of God, but \mˆ ˆi\ is "not be" merely. The only secure place for faith to find a rest is in God's power, not in the wisdom of men. One has only to instance the changing theories of men about science, philosophy, religion, politics to see this. A sure word from God can be depended on.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:13 @{But God shall bring to nought both it and them} (\ho de theos kai tautˆn kai tauta katargˆsei\). Another proverb about the adaptation of the belly (\koilia\) and food (\br“mata\, not just flesh), which had apparently been used by some in Corinth to justify sexual license (fornication and adultery). These Gentiles mixed up matters not alike at all (questions of food and sensuality). " We have traces of this gross moral confusion in the circumstances which dictated the Apostolic Letter (Acts:15:23-29|), where things wholly diverse are combined, as directions about meats to be avoided and a prohibition of fornication" (Lightfoot). Both the belly (\tautˆn\) and the foods (\tauta\) God will bring to an end by death and change. {But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body} (\to de s“ma ou tˆi porneiƒi alla t“i kuri“i, kai ho kurios t“i s“mati\). Paul here boldly shows the fallacy in the parallel about appetite of the belly for food. The human body has a higher mission than the mere gratification of sensual appetite. Sex is of God for the propagation of the race, not for prostitution. Paul had already stated that God dwells in us as the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit (3:16f.|). This higher function of the body he here puts forward against the debased Greek philosophy of the time which ignored completely Paul's idea, "the body for the Lord and the Lord for the body" (dative of personal interest in both cases). "The Lord Jesus and \porneia\ contested for the bodies of Christian men; loyal to him they must renounce _that_, yielding to _that_ they renounce him" (Findlay).

rwp@1Corinthians:11:16 @{Contentious} (\philoneikos\). Old adjective (\philos, neikos\), fond of strife. Only here in N.T. If he only existed in this instance, the disputatious brother. {Custom} (\sunˆtheian\). Old word from \sunˆthˆs\ (\sun, ˆthos\), like Latin _consuetudo_, intercourse, intimacy. In N.T. only here and strkjv@8:7| which see. "In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair short" (Vincent).

rwp@1Corinthians:12:6 @{Of workings} (\energˆmat“n\). Late word, here only in N.T., the effect of a thing wrought (from \energe“\, to operate, perform, energize). Paul uses also the late kindred word \energeia\ (Colossians:1:29; strkjv@2:12|) for efficiency. {Who worketh all things in all} (\ho energ“n ta panta en pasin\). Paul is not afraid to say that God is the Energy and the Energizer of the Universe. "I say that the magnet floats in space by the will of God" (Dr. W. R. Whitney, a world figure in science). This is his philosophic and scientific theory of the Cosmos. No one has shown Paul's philosophy and science to be wrong. Here he is speaking only of spiritual gifts and results as a whole, but he applies this principle to the universe (\ta panta\) in strkjv@Colossians:1:16| (of Christ) and in strkjv@Romans:11:36| (of God). Note the Trinity in these verses: the same Spirit (verse 4|), the same Lord (Jesus) in verse 5|, the same God (the Father) in verse 6|.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:33 @{Be not deceived} (\mˆ planƒsthe\). Do not be led astray (\plana“\) by such a false philosophy of life. {Evil company} (\homiliai kakai\). Evil companionships. Old word, \homilia\, from \homilos\ (a crowd, gang, bunch). Only here in N.T. Good manners (\ˆthˆ\). Old word (kin to \ethos\) custom, usage, morals. Good morals here. This line of poetry (iambic) occurs in Menander. It may be a current proverb. Paul could have gotten it from either source.

rwp@Info_1Peter @ SOME BOOKS Alford, H., Vol. IV. 1 of his _Greek Testament_ (1870). Baldwin, _The Fisherman of Galilee_ (1923). Barnes, _St. Peter in Rome and His Tomb on the Vatican Hill_. Beck, J. T., _Erklarung der Briefe Petri_ (1895). Bennett, W. H., _New-Century Bible_ (1901). Bigg, C., _Intern. Crit. Comm_. (1901). Birks, _Studies in the Life and Character of St. Peter_ (1887). Blenkin, _The First Ep. General of St. Peter_ (1915). Camerlinck, _Commentarius in epistolas catholicas_ (1909). Cooke and Lumby, _Speaker's Comm_. (1881). Couard, _Commentaire_ (1895). Couard, _Simon Petrus der Apostel des Herrn_. Davidson, _St. Peter and His Training_. Elert, _Die Religiositat des Petrus_ (1911). Erbes, _Die Todestage der Apostels Paulus and Petrus_ (1899). Foakes-Jackson, F. J., _Peter Prince of Apostles_ (1927). Foster, Ora D., _The Literary Relations of the First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Fouard, C., _St. Peter and the First Years of Christianity_ (1892). Gallagher, M., _Was the Apostle Peter Ever at Rome?_ (1894). Goutard, _Essai critique et historique sur la prem. e'pitre de S. Pierre_ (1905). Green, S. G., _The Apostle Peter: His Life and Letters_ (1880). Guignebert, _Lamentations:Primaute' de Pierre et la Venue de Pierre a Rome_ (1909). Gunkel, H., _Die Schriften d. N.T_. 3 Aufl. (1917). Hart, J. H. A., _Expos. Greek Test_. (1910). Henriott, _Saint Pierre_ (1891). Hort, F. J. A., _The First Epistle of St. Peter strkjv@1:1-2:17_ (1898). Howson, J., _Horae Petrinae_ (1883). Jenkins, R. C., _The Apostle Peter. Claims of Catholics_ (1875). Johnstone, _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1888). Kasteren, Van, _Deuteronomy:Eerste Brief Van d. Ap. Petrus_ (1911). Keil, C. F., _Comm. uber die Briefe des Petrus und Juda_ (1883). Knopf, R., _Die Briefe Petri und Juda_ (1912). Kogel, J., _Die Gedankenheit des Ersten Briefes Petri_ (1902). Kuhl, E., _Die Briefe Petri und Judae_ (Meyer Komm., 6 Aufl., 1897). Lietzmann, _Petrus and Paulus in Rom_. Lumby, J. R., _Expositor's Bible_ (1893). Masterman, J. H. B., _Epistles of St. Peter_ (1900). McInnis, J.M., _Simon Peter Fisherman and Philosopher_ (1928). Meyer, F. B., _Peter: Fisherman, Disciple, Apostle_ (1920). Moffatt, James, _Moffatt Comm. on N.T._ (1930). Monneir, J., _Lamentations:premiere e'pitre de l'apotre Pierre_ (1900). Perdelwitz, _Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des ersten Petrusbriefes_ (1911). Plumptre, _Cambridge Bible_ (1879). Reagan, _The Preaching of Peter, the Beginning of Christian Apologetics_ (1922). Robinson, C. G., _Simon Peter: His Life and Times_ (1889). Ross, J. M. E., _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Salmond, A. D. F., _Schaff's Comm_. (1883). Scharfe, _Die petrinische Stromung der neut. Literatur_ (1893). Schmid, _Petrus in Rome_ (1879). Seeley, _The Life and Writings of St. Peter_. Soden, Von, H., _Hand-Komm_. (3 Aufl., 1899). Taylor, W. M., _Peter the Apostle_ (1876). Thomas, W. H., Griffith, _The Apostle Peter_ (2nd ed., 1905). Thompson, _Life-Work of Peter the Apostle_. Upham, _Simon Peter Shepherd_ (1910). Usteri, J. M., _Wiss. und prakt. Komm. uber den I Petrus- brief_ (1887). Volter, D., _Der I Petrusbrief_ (1906). Weiss, B., _Die erste Petrusbrief und die Kritik_ (1906). _Der petrinische Lehrbegriff_ (1855). Williams, N. M., _American Comm_. Windisch, H., _Die Katholische Briefe. Handbuch zum N.T._ (2 Aufl., 1930). Wohlenberg, G., _Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief_. (Zahn Komm., 2 Aufl., 1915.) strkjv@1Peter:1:1 @{Peter} (\Petros\). Greek form for the Aramaic (Chaldaic) \Cˆphƒs\, the nickname given Simon by Jesus when he first saw him (John:1:42|) and reaffirmed in the Greek form on his great confession (Matthew:16:18|), with an allusion to \petra\, another form for a rock, ledge, or cliff. In strkjv@2Peter:1:1| we have both \Sim“n\ and \Petros\. Paul in his Epistles always terms himself Paul, not Saul. Songs:Peter uses this name, not Cephas or Simon, because he is writing to Christians scattered over Asia Minor. The nominative absolute occurs here as in strkjv@James:1:1|, but without \chairein\ as there, the usual form of greeting in letters (Acts:23:26|) so common in the papyri. {An apostle of Jesus Christ} (\apostolos Iˆsou Christou\). This is his official title, but in strkjv@2Peter:1:1| \doulos\ is added, which occurs alone in strkjv@James:1:1|. In II and III John we have only \ho presbuteros\ (the elder), as Peter terms himself \sunpresbuteros\ in strkjv@1Peter:5:1|. Paul's usage varies greatly: only the names in I and II Thessalonians, the title \apostolos\ added and defended in Galatians and Romans as also in I and II Corinthians and Colossians and Ephesians and II Timothy with "by the will of God" added, and in I Timothy with the addition of "according to the command of God." In Philippians Paul has only "\doulos\ (slave) \Christou Iˆsou\," like James and Jude. In Romans and Titus Paul has both \doulos\ and \apostolos\, like II Peter, while in Philemon he uses only \desmios\ (prisoner) \Iˆsou Christou\. {To the elect} (\eklektois\). Without article (with the article in strkjv@Matthew:24:22,24,31|) and dative case, "to elect persons" (viewed as a group). Bigg takes \eklektois\ (old, but rare verbal adjective from \ekleg“\, to pick out, to select) as an adjective describing the next word, "to elect sojourners." That is possible and is like \genos eklekton\ in strkjv@2:9|. See the distinction between \klˆtoi\ (called) and \eklektoi\ (chosen) in strkjv@Matthew:22:14|. {Who are sojourners} (\parepidˆmois\). Late double compound adjective (\para, epidˆmountes\, strkjv@Acts:2:10|, to sojourn by the side of natives), strangers sojourning for a while in a particular place. Songs:in Polybius, papyri, in LXX only twice (Genesis:23:4|; 38 or 39 12), in N.T. only here, strkjv@2:11; strkjv@Hebrews:11:13|. The picture in the metaphor here is that heaven is our native country and we are only temporary sojourners here on earth. {Of the Dispersion} (\diasporƒs\). See strkjv@John:7:35| for literal sense of the word for scattered (from \diaspeir“\, to scatter abroad, strkjv@Acts:8:1|) Jews outside of Palestine, and strkjv@James:1:1| for the sense here to Jewish Christians, including Gentile Christians (only N T. examples). Note absence of the article, though a definite conception (of the Dispersion). The Christian is a pilgrim on his way to the homeland. These five Roman provinces include what we call Asia Minor north and west of the Taurus mountain range (Hort). Hort suggests that the order here suggests that Silvanus (bearer of the Epistle) was to land in Pontus from the Euxine Sea, proceed through Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, to Bithynia, where he would re-embark for Rome. This, he holds, explains the separation of Pontus and Bithynia, though the same province. Only Galatia and Asia are mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. as having Christian converts, but the N.T. by no means gives a full account of the spread of the Gospel, as can be judged from strkjv@Colossians:1:6,23|.

rwp@1Peter:2:13 @{Be subject to} (\hupotagˆte\). Second aorist passive imperative second person plural of \hupotass“\, to subject to, as in strkjv@3:22|. {Every ordinance of man} (\pasˆi anthr“pinˆi ktisei\). Dative case of old and common word \ktisis\ (from \ktiz“\, to create, to found), act of creation (Romans:1:20|), a creature or creation (Romans:1:25|), all creation (Colossians:1:15|), an institution as here (in Pindar so). For \anthr“pinos\ (human) see strkjv@James:3:7|. Peter here approves no special kind of government, but he supports law and order as Paul does (Romans:13:1-8|) unless it steps in between God and man (Acts:4:20|). {For the Lord's sake} (\dia ton kurion\). For Jesus' sake. That is reason enough for the Christian not to be an anarchist (Matthew:22:21|). The heathen were keen to charge the Christians with any crime after Nero set the fashion. "It should not be forgotten that, in spite of the fine language of the philosophers, the really popular religions in Greece and Rome were forms of devil-worship, intimately blended with magic in all its grades" (Bigg). {As supreme} (\h“s huperechonti\). Dative singular of present active participle of \huperech“\, old verb (intransitive), to stand out above (to have it over), as in strkjv@Romans:13:1|. It is not the divine right of kings, but the fact of the king as the outstanding ruler.

rwp@1Peter:3:8 @{Finally} (\to telos\). Adverbial accusative. Conclusion, not of the Epistle, but only of the addresses to various classes. No verb (\este\ imperative, be) here. {Likeminded} (\homophrones\). Old compound (\homos, phrˆn\), here only in N.T. {Compassionate} (\sumpatheis\). Old adjective (\sun, pasch“\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:12:15|. Our "sympathetic" in original sense. {Loving as brethren} (\philadelphoi\). Old compound (\philos, adelphos\), here only in N.T. {Tender-hearted} (\eusplagchnoi\). Late and rare compound (\eu\ and \splagchnon\), in Hippocrates, Apocrypha, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:4:32|. {Humble minded} (\tapeinophrones\). Late compound (\tapeinos, phrˆn\), in Plutarch, strkjv@Proverbs:29:23|, here only in N.T.

rwp@1Peter:4:9 @{Using hospitality} (\philoxenoi\). "Friendly to strangers," old word (from \philos, xenos\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Timothy:3:2; strkjv@Titus:1:8|. No verb here in the Greek. {Without murmuring} (\aneu goggusmou\). Like \ch“ris goggusm“n\ in strkjv@Phillipians:2:14|. Complaint spoils hospitality. Jesus enjoined the entertainment of strangers (Matthew:25:35|). Inns were rare and very poor. Hospitality made mission work possible (3John:1:5|).

rwp@1Peter:5:8 @{Be watchful} (\grˆgorˆsate\). First aorist active imperative of \grˆgore“\, late present imperative from perfect \egrˆgora\ (to be awake) from \egeir“\ (to arouse), as in strkjv@Matthew:24:42|. For \nˆpsate\ see strkjv@1:13; strkjv@4:7|. {Your adversary} (\ho antidikos hum“n\). Old word for opponent in a lawsuit (Matthew:5:25|). {The devil} (\diabolos\). Slanderer. See on ¯Matthew:4:1|. {As a roaring lion} (\h“s “ruomenos le“n\). But Jesus is also pictured as the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Revelation:5:5|). But Satan {roars} at the saints. Present middle participle \“ruomai\, old verb, here only in N.T., to howl like a wolf, dog, or lion, of men to sing loud (Pindar). See strkjv@Psalms:22:13|. {Whom he may devour} (\katapiein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \katapin“\, to drink down. B does not have \tina\, Aleph has \tina\ (somebody), "to devour some one," while A has interrogative \tina\, "whom he may devour" (very rare idiom). But the devil's purpose is the ruin of men. He is a "peripatetic" (\peripatei\) like the peripatetic philosophers who walked as they talked. Satan wants all of us and sifts us all (Luke:22:31|).

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:11 @{That ye study to be quiet} (\philotimeisthai hˆsuchazein\). First infinitive dependent on \parakaloumen\ (verse 10|, we exhort you), the second on \philotimeisthai\ (old verb from \philotimos\, fond of honour, \philos, timˆ\). The notion of ambition appears in each of the three N.T. examples (1Thessalonians:4:11; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:9; strkjv@Romans:5:20|), but it is ambition to do good, not evil. The word ambition is Latin (_ambitio_ from _ambo, ire_), to go on both sides to accomplish one's aims and often evil). A preacher devoid of ambition lacks power. There was a restless spirit in Thessalonica because of the misapprehension of the second coming. Songs:Paul urges an ambition to be quiet or calm, to lead a quiet life, including silence (Acts:11:18|). {To do your own business} (\prassein ta idia\). Present infinitive like the others, to have the habit of attending to their own affairs (\ta idia\). This restless meddlesomeness here condemned Paul alludes to again in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:11| in plainer terms. It is amazing how much wisdom people have about other people's affairs and so little interest in their own. {To work with your own hands} (\ergazesthai tais chersin hum“n\). Instrumental case (\chersin\). Paul gave a new dignity to manual labour by precept and example. There were "pious" idlers in the church in Thessalonica who were promoting trouble. He had commanded them when with them.

rwp@1Timothy:3:2 @{The bishop} (\ton episkopon\). The overseer. Old word, in LXX, and inscriptions and papyri. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, pp. 230f.) has shown it is applied to communal officials in Rhodes. See strkjv@Acts:20:28| for its use for the elders (presbyters) in verse 17|. Songs:also in strkjv@Titus:1:5,7|. See strkjv@Phillipians:1:1|. The word does not in the N.T. have the monarchical sense found in Ignatius of a bishop over elders. {Without reproach} (\anepilˆmpton\). Accusative case of general reference with \dei\ and \einai\. Old and common verbal (\a\ privative and \epilamban“\, not to be taken hold of), irreproachable. In N.T. only here, strkjv@5:7; strkjv@6:14|. {Of one wife} (\mias gunaikos\). One at a time, clearly. {Temperate} (\nˆphalion\). Old adjective. In N.T. only here, verse 11; strkjv@Titus:2:2|. But see \nˆph“\, to be sober in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:6,8|. {Soberminded} (\s“phrona\). Another old adjective (from \saos\ or \s“s\, sound, \phrˆn\, mind) in N.T. only here, strkjv@Titus:1:8; strkjv@2:2,5|. {Orderly} (\kosmion\). See on ¯2:9|. Seemly, decent conduct. {Given to hospitality} (\philoxenon\). Old word (see \philoxenia\ in strkjv@Romans:12:13|), from \philos\ and \xenos\, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Titus:1:8; strkjv@1Peter:4:9|. {Apt to teach} (\didaktikon\). Late form for old \didaskalikos\, one qualified to teach. In Philo and N.T. only (1Timothy:3:2; strkjv@2Timothy:2:24|).

rwp@1Timothy:6:10 @{The love of money} (\hˆ philarguria\). Vulgate, _avaritia_. Common word (from \philarguros\, strkjv@2Timothy:3:12|, and that from \philos, arguros\), only here in N.T. Refers to verse 9| (\boulomenoi ploutein\). {A root of all kinds of evil} (\riza pant“n t“n kak“n\). A root (\riza\). Old word, common in literal (Matthew:3:10|) and metaphorical sense (Romans:11:11-18|). Field (_Ot. Norv_.) argues for "the root" as the idea of this predicate without saying that it is the only root. Undoubtedly a proverb that Paul here quotes, attributed to Bion and to Democritus (\tˆn philargurian einai mˆtropolin pant“n t“n kak“n\), where "metropolis" takes the place of "root." Surely men today need no proof of the fact that men and women will commit any sin or crime for money. {Reaching after} (\oregomenoi\). Present middle participle of \oreg“\ (see strkjv@3:1|) with genitive \hˆs\ (which). {Have been led astray} (\apeplanˆthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \apoplana“\, old compound verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:13:22|. {Have pierced themselves through} (\heautous periepeiran\). First aorist active (with reflexive pronoun) of late compound \peripeir“\, only here in N.T. Perfective use of \peri\ (around, completely to pierce). {With many sorrows} (\odunais pollais\). Instrumental case of \odunˆ\ (consuming, eating grief). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:9:2|.

rwp@2Corinthians:1:8 @{Concerning our affliction} (\huper tˆs thlipse“s hˆm“n\). Manuscripts read also \peri\ for in the _Koin‚_ \huper\ (over) often has the idea of \peri\ (around). Paul has laid down his philosophy of afflictions and now he cites a specific illustration in his own recent experience. {In Asia} (\en Asiƒi\). Probably in Ephesus, but what it was we do not know whether sickness or peril. We do know that the disciples and the Asiarchs would not allow Paul to face the mob in the amphitheatre gathered by Demetrius (Acts:20:30f.|). In strkjv@Romans:16:4| Paul says that Prisca and Aquila laid down their necks for him, risked their very lives for him. It may have been a later plot to kill Paul that hastened his departure from Ephesus (Acts:20:1|). He had a trial so great that "we were weighed down exceedingly beyond our power" (\kath' huperbolˆn huper dunamin ebarˆthˆmen\). Old verb from \baros\, weight, \barus\, weighty. First aorist passive indicative. See on ¯1Corinthians:12:31| for \kath' huperbolˆn\ (cf. our hyperbole). It was beyond Paul's power to endure if left to himself. {Insomuch that we despaired even of life} (\h“ste exaporˆthˆnai hˆmas kai tou zˆin\). Usual clause of result with \h“ste\ and the infinitive. First aorist passive infinitive \exaporˆthˆnai\, late compound for utter despair (perfective use of \ex\ and at a complete loss, \a\ privative and \poros\, way). There seemed no way out. {Of life} (\tou zˆin\). Ablative case of the articular infinitive, of living.

rwp@2Corinthians:5:9 @{We make it our aim} (\philotimoumetha\). Old and common verb, present middle, from \philotimos\ (\philos, timˆ\, fond of honour), to act from love of honour, to be ambitious in the good sense (1Thessalonians:4:11; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:9; strkjv@Romans:15:20|). The Latin _ambitio_ has a bad sense from _ambire_, to go both ways to gain one's point. {To be well-pleasing to him} (\euarestoi aut“i einai\). Late adjective that shows Paul's loyalty to Christ, his Captain. Found in several inscriptions in the _Koin‚_ period (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 214; Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_).

rwp@2Corinthians:9:8 @{Is able} (\dunatei\). Late verb, not found except here; strkjv@13:3; strkjv@Romans:14:4|. Songs:far a Pauline word made from \dunatos\, able. {All sufficiency} (\pƒsan autarkeian\). Old word from \autarkˆs\ (Phillipians:4:11|), common word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Timothy:6:6|). The use of this word shows Paul's acquaintance with Stoicism. Paul takes this word of Greek philosophy and applies it to the Christian view of life as independent of circumstances. But he does not accept the view of the Cynics in the avoidance of society. Note threefold use of "all" here (\en panti, pantote, pƒsan\, in everything, always, all sufficiency).

rwp@2Timothy:3:2 @{Lovers of self} (\philautoi\). Old compound adjective (\philos, autos\), here only in N.T. {Lovers of money} (\philarguroi\). Old compound adjective, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:16:14|. See strkjv@1Timothy:6:10|. {Boastful} (\alazones\). Old word for empty pretender, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:1:30|. {Haughty} (\huperˆphanoi\). See also strkjv@Romans:1:30| for this old word. {Railers} (\blasphˆmoi\). See strkjv@1Timothy:1:13|. {Disobedient to parents} (\goneusin apeitheis\). See strkjv@Romans:1:30|. {Unthankful} (\acharistoi\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:6:35|. {Unholy} (\anosioi\). See strkjv@1Timothy:1:9|. {Without natural affection} (\astorgoi\). See strkjv@Romans:1:31|.

rwp@2Timothy:3:4 @{Traitors} (\prodotai\). Old word (from \prodid“mi\), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:6:16; strkjv@Acts:7:52|. {Headstrong} (\propeteis\). Old word (from \pro\ and \pipt“\), falling forward, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:19:36|. {Puffed up} (\tetuph“menoi\). Perfect passive participle of \tupho“\. See strkjv@1Timothy:3:6|. {Lovers of pleasure} (\philˆdonoi\). Literary _Koin‚_ word (\philos, hˆdonˆ\), only here in N.T. {Lovers of God} (\philotheoi\). Old word (\philos, theos\), only here in N.T.

rwp@Acts:13:39 @{And by him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses} (\kai apo pant“n h“n ouk ˆdunˆthˆte en nom“i M“use“s dikaiothˆnai en tout“i pƒs ho pisteu“n dikaioutai\). This is a characteristic Greek sentence with the principal clause at the end and Pauline to the core. A literal rendering as to the order would be: "And from all the things from (\apo\ not repeated in the Greek, but understood, the ablative case being repeated) which ye were not able to be justified in this one every one who believes is justified." The climax is at the close and gives us the heart of Paul's teaching about Christ. "We have here the germ of all that is most characteristic in Paul's later teaching. It is the argument of the Epistle to Galatians and Romans in a sentence" (Furneaux). The failure of the Mosaic law to bring the kind of righteousness that God demands is stated. This is made possible in and by (\en\) Christ alone. Paul's favourite words occur here, \pisteu“\, believe, with which \pistis\, faith, is allied, \dikaio“\, to set right with God on the basis of faith. In strkjv@Romans:6:7| Paul uses \apo\ also after \dikaio“\. These are key words (\pisteu“\ and \dikaio“\) in Paul's theology and call for prolonged and careful study if one is to grasp the Pauline teaching. \Dikaio“\ primarily means to make righteous, to declare righteous like \axio“\, to deem worthy (\axios\). But in the end Paul holds that real righteousness will come (Romans:6-8|) to those whom God treats as righteous (Romans:3-5|) though both Gentile and Jew fall short without Christ (Romans:1-3|). This is the doctrine of grace that will prove a stumbling block to the Jews with their ceremonial works and foolishness to the Greeks with their abstract philosophical ethics (1Corinthians:1:23-25|). It is a new and strange doctrine to the people of Antioch.

rwp@Acts:14:16 @{In the generations gone by} (\en tais par“ichˆmenais geneais\). Perfect middle participle from \paroichomai\, to go by, old verb, here alone in the N.T. {Suffered} (\eiasen\). Constative aorist active indicative of \ea“\ (note syllabic augment). Paul here touches God in history as he did just before in creation. God's hand is on the history of all the nations (Gentile and Jew), only with the Gentiles he withdrew the restraints of his grace in large measure (Acts:17:30; strkjv@Romans:1:24,26,28|), judgment enough for their sins. {To walk in their ways} (\poreuesthai tais hodois aut“n\). Present middle infinitive, to go on walking, with locative case without \en\. This philosophy of history does not mean that God was ignorant or unconcerned. He was biding his time in patience.

rwp@Acts:14:27 @{Gathered the church together} (\sunagagontes tˆn ekklˆsian\). Second aorist active participle of \sunag“\. It "was the first missionary meeting in history" (Furneaux). It was not hard to get the church together when the news spread that Paul and Barnabas had returned. "The suitability of the Gospel to become the religion of the world had not before been put to the test" (Furneaux). Doubtless many "wise-acres" had predicted failure as they did for William Carey and for Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice. {Rehearsed} (\anˆggellon\). Imperfect active. It was a long story for they had many things to tell of God's dealings "with them" (\met' aut“n\) for God had been "with them" all the while as Jesus had said he would be (Matthew:28:20|, \meth' h–m“n\). Paul could recount some of the details given later in strkjv@2Corinthians:11|. {And how} (\kai hoti\). Or "and that" in particular, as the upshot of it all. {He had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles} (\ˆnoixen tois ethnesin thuran piste“s\). Three times in Paul's Epistles (1Corinthians:16:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:12; strkjv@Colossians:4:3|) he employed the metaphor of "door," perhaps a reminiscence of the very language of Paul here. This work in Galatia gained a large place in Paul's heart (Galatians:4:14f.|). The Gentiles now, it was plain, could enter the kingdom of God (verse 22|) through the door of faith, not by law or by circumcision or by heathen philosophy or mythology.

rwp@Acts:17:16 @{Now while Paul waited for them in Athens} (\En de tais Athˆnais ekdechomenou autous tou Paulou\). Genitive absolute with present middle participle of \ekdechomai\, old verb to receive, but only with the sense of looking out for, expecting found here and elsewhere in N.T We know that Timothy did come to Paul in Athens (1Thessalonians:3:1,6|) from Thessalonica and was sent back to them from Athens. If Silas also came to Athens, he was also sent away, possibly to Philippi, for that church was deeply interested in Paul. At any rate both Timothy and Silas came from Macedonia to Corinth with messages and relief for Paul (Acts:18:5; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:8f.|). Before they came and after they left, Paul felt lonely in Athens (1Thessalonians:3:1|), the first time on this tour or the first that he has been completely without fellow workers. Athens had been captured by Sulla B.C. 86. After various changes Achaia, of which Corinth is the capital, is a separate province from Macedonia and A.D. 44 was restored by Claudius to the Senate with the Proconsul at Corinth. Paul is probably here about A.D. 50. Politically Athens is no longer of importance when Paul comes though it is still the university seat of the world with all its rich environment and traditions. Rackham grows eloquent over Paul the Jew of Tarsus being in the city of Pericles and Demosthenes, Socrates and Plato and Aristotle, Sophocles and Euripides. In its Agora Socrates had taught, here was the Academy of Plato, the Lyceum of Aristotle, the Porch of Zeno, the Garden of Epicurus. Here men still talked about philosophy, poetry, politics, religion, anything and everything. It was the art centre of the world. The Parthenon, the most beautiful of temples, crowned the Acropolis. Was Paul insensible to all this cultural environment? It is hard to think so for he was a university man of Tarsus and he makes a number of allusions to Greek writers. Probably it had not been in Paul's original plan to evangelize Athens, difficult as all university seats are, but he cannot be idle though here apparently by chance because driven out of Macedonia. {Was provoked} (\par“xuneto\). Imperfect passive of \paroxun“\, old verb to sharpen, to stimulate, to irritate (from \para, oxus\), from \paroxusmos\ (Acts:15:39|), common in old Greek, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:13:5|. It was a continual challenge to Paul's spirit when he beheld (\the“rountos\, genitive of present participle agreeing with \autou\ (his), though late MSS. have locative \the“rounti\ agreeing with \en aut“i\). {The city full of idols} (\kateid“lon ousan tˆn polin\). Note the participle \ousan\ not preserved in the English (either the city being full of idols or that the city was full of idols, sort of indirect discourse). Paul, like any stranger was looking at the sights as he walked around. This adjective \kateid“lon\ (perfective use of \kata\ and \eid“lon\ is found nowhere else, but it is formed after the analogy of \katampelos, katadendron\), full of idols. Xenophon (_de Republ. Ath_.) calls the city \holˆ bomos, holˆ thuma theois kai anathˆma\ (all altar, all sacrifice and offering to the gods). These statues were beautiful, but Paul was not deceived by the mere art for art's sake. The idolatry and sensualism of it all glared at him (Romans:1:18-32|). Renan ridicules Paul's ignorance in taking these statues for idols, but Paul knew paganism better than Renan. The superstition of this centre of Greek culture was depressing to Paul. One has only to recall how superstitious cults today flourish in the atmosphere of Boston and Los Angeles to understand conditions in Athens. Pausanias says that Athens had more images than all the rest of Greece put together. Pliny states that in the time of Nero Athens had over 30,000 public statues besides countless private ones in the homes. Petronius sneers that it was easier to find a god than a man in Athens. Every gateway or porch had its protecting god. They lined the street from the Piraeus and caught the eye at every place of prominence on wall or in the agora.

rwp@Acts:17:17 @{Songs:he reasoned} (\dielegeto men oun\). Accordingly therefore, with his spirit stirred by the proof of idolatry. Imperfect middle of \dialeg“\, same verb used in verse 2| which see. First he reasoned in the synagogue at the services to the Jews and the God-fearers, then daily in the agora or marketplace (southwest of the Acropolis, between it and the Areopagus and the Pnyx) to the chance-comers, "them that met him" (\pros tous paratugchanontas\). Simultaneously with the synagogue preaching at other hours Paul took his stand like Socrates before him and engaged in conversation with (\pros\) those who happened by. This old verb, \paratugchan“\, occurs here alone in the N.T. and accurately pictures the life in the agora. The listeners to Paul in the agora would be more casual than those who stop for street preaching, a Salvation Army meeting, a harangue from a box in Hyde Park. It was a slim chance either in synagogue or in agora, but Paul could not remain still with all the reeking idolatry around him. The boundaries of the agora varied, but there was always the \Poikilˆ Stoa\ (the Painted Porch), over against the Acropolis on the west. In this \Stoa\ (Porch) Zeno and other philosophers and rhetoricians held forth from time to time. Paul may have stood near this spot.

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai t“n Epikouri“n kai St“ik“n philosoph“n suneballon aut“i\). Imperfect active of \sunball“\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gn“thi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg“\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zen“n daimoni“n dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei S“kratˆs, kaina daimonia eispher“n\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Iˆsoun kai tˆn anastasin euˆggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz“\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

rwp@Acts:17:19 @{And they took hold of him} (\epilabomenoi de autou\). Second aorist middle participle of \epilamban“\, old verb, but in the N.T. only in the middle, here with the genitive \autou\ to lay hold of, but with no necessary sense of violence (Acts:9:27; strkjv@23:27; strkjv@Mark:8:23|), unless the idea is that Paul was to be tried before the Court of Areopagus for the crime of bringing in strange gods. But the day for that had passed in Athens. Even so it is not clear whether "{unto the Areopagus} (\epi ton Areion Pagon\") means the Hill of Mars (west of the Acropolis, north of the agora and reached by a flight of steps in the rock) or the court itself which met elsewhere as well as on the hills, usually in fact in the Stoa Basilica opening on the agora and near to the place where the dispute had gone on. Raphael's cartoon with Paul standing on Mars Hill has made us all familiar with the common view, but it is quite uncertain if it is true. There was not room on the summit for a large gathering. If Paul was brought before the Court of Areopagus (commonly called the Areopagus as here), it was not for trial as a criminal, but simply for examination concerning his new teaching in this university city whether it was strictly legal or not. Paul was really engaged in proselytism to turn the Athenians away from their old gods to Jesus Christ. But "the court of refined and polished Athenians was very different from the rough provincial magistrates of Philippi, and the philosophers who presented Paul to their cognizance very different from the mob of Thessalonians" (Rackham). It was all very polite. {May we know?} (\Dunametha gn“nai\). Can we come to know (ingressive second aorist active infinitive). {This new teaching} (\hˆ kainˆ hautˆ didachˆ\). On the position of \hautˆ\ see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 700f. The question was prompted by courtesy, sarcasm, or irony. Evidently no definite charge was laid against Paul.

rwp@Acts:17:22 @{Stood in the midst of the Areopagus} (\statheis en mes“i tou Areiou Pagou\). First aorist passive of \histˆmi\ used of Peter in strkjv@2:14|. Majestic figure whether on Mars Hill or in the Stoa Basilica before the Areopagus Court. There would be a crowd of spectators and philosophers in either case and Paul seized the opportunity to preach Christ to this strange audience as he did in Caesarea before Herod Agrippa and the crowd of prominent people gathered by Festus for the entertainment. Paul does not speak as a man on trial, but as one trying to get a hearing for the gospel of Christ. {Somewhat superstitious} (\h“s deisidaimonesterous\). The Authorized Version has "too superstitious," the American Standard "very religious." \Deisidaim“n\ is a neutral word (from \deid“\, to fear, and \daim“n\, deity). The Greeks used it either in the good sense of pious or religious or the bad sense of superstitious. Thayer suggests that Paul uses it "with kindly ambiguity." Page thinks that Luke uses the word to represent the religious feeling of the Athenians (_religiosus_) which bordered on superstition. The Vulgate has _superstitiosiores_. In strkjv@25:19| Festus uses the term \deisidaimonia\ for "religion." It seems unlikely that Paul should give this audience a slap in the face at the very start. The way one takes this adjective here colours Paul's whole speech before the Council of Areopagus. The comparative here as in verse 21| means more religions than usual (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 664f.), the object of the comparison not being expressed. The Athenians had a tremendous reputation for their devotion to religion, "full of idols" (verse 16|).

rwp@Acts:17:23 @{For} (\gar\). Paul gives an illustration of their religiousness from his own experiences in their city. {The objects of your worship} (\ta sebasmata hum“n\). Late word from \sebazomai\, to worship. In N T. only here and strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:4|. The use of this word for temples, altars, statues, shows the conciliatory tone in the use of \deisidaimonesterous\ in verse 22|. {An altar} (\b“mon\). Old word, only here in the N.T. and the only mention of a heathen altar in the N.T {With this inscription} (\en h“i epegegrapto\). On which had been written (stood written), past perfect passive indicative of \epigraph“\, old and common verb for writing on inscriptions (\epigraphˆ\, strkjv@Luke:23:38|). {To an Unknown God} (\AGNOSTO THEO\). Dative case, dedicated to. Pausanias (I. 1, 4) says that in Athens there are "altars to gods unknown" (\b“moi the“n agn“st“n\). Epimenides in a pestilence advised the sacrifice of a sheep to the befitting god whoever he might be. If an altar was dedicated to the wrong deity, the Athenians feared the anger of the other gods. The only use in the N.T. of \agn“stos\, old and common adjective (from \a\ privative and \gn“stos\ verbal of \gin“sk“\, to know). Our word agnostic comes from it. Here it has an ambiguous meaning, but Paul uses it though to a stern Christian philosopher it may be the "confession at once of a bastard philosophy and of a bastard religion" (Hort, _Hulsean Lectures_, p. 64). Paul was quick to use this confession on the part of the Athenians of a higher power than yet known to them. Songs:he gets his theme from this evidence of a deeper religious sense in them and makes a most clever use of it with consummate skill. {In ignorance} (\agnoountes\). Present active participle of \agnoe“\, old verb from same root as \agn“stos\ to which Paul refers by using it. {This set I forth unto you} (\touto ego kataggell“ humin\). He is a \kataggeleus\ (verse 18|) as they suspected of a God, both old and new, old in that they already worship him, new in that Paul knows who he is. By this master stroke he has brushed to one side any notion of violation of Roman law or suspicion of heresy and claims their endorsement of his new gospel, a shrewd and consummate turn. He has their attention now and proceeds to describe this God left out of their list as the one true and Supreme God. The later MSS. here read \hon--touton\ (whom--this one) rather than \ho--touto\ (what--this), but the late text is plainly an effort to introduce too soon the personal nature of God which comes out clearly in verse 24|.

rwp@Acts:17:28 @{For in him} (\en aut“i gar\). Proof of God's nearness, not stoic pantheism, but real immanence in God as God dwells in us. The three verbs (\z“men, kinoumetha, esmen\) form an ascending scale and reach a climax in God (life, movement, existence). \Kinoumetha\ is either direct middle present indicative (we move ourselves) or passive (we are moved). {As certain even of your own poets} (\h“s kai tines t“n kath' humƒs poiˆt“n\). "As also some of the poets among you." Aratus of Soli in Cilicia (ab. B.C. 270) has these very words in his _Ta Phainomena_ and Cleanthes, Stoic philosopher (300-220 B.C.) in his _Hymn to Zeus_ has \Ek sou gar genos esmen\. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:32| Paul quotes from Menander and in strkjv@Titus:1:12| from Epimenides. J. Rendel Harris claims that he finds allusions in Paul's Epistles to Pindar, Aristophanes, and other Greek writers. There is no reason in the world why Paul should not have acquaintance with Greek literature, though one need not strain a point to prove it. Paul, of course, knew that the words were written of Zeus (Jupiter), not of Jehovah, but he applies the idea in them to his point just made that all men are the offspring of God.

rwp@Acts:17:31 @{Inasmuch as} (\kathoti\). According as (\kata, hoti\). Old causal conjunction, but in N.T. only used in Luke's writings (Luke:1:7; strkjv@19:9; strkjv@Acts:2:45; strkjv@4:35; strkjv@17:31|). {Hath appointed a day} (\estˆsen hˆmeran\) First aorist active indicative of \histˆmi\, to place, set. God did set the day in his counsel and he will fulfil it in his own time. {Will judge} (\mellei krinein\). Rather, is going to judge, \mell“\ and the present active infinitive of \krin“\. Paul here quotes strkjv@Psalms:9:8| where \krinei\ occurs. {By the man whom he hath ordained} (\en andri h“i h“risen\). Here he adds to the Psalm the place and function of Jesus Christ, a passage in harmony with Christ's own words in strkjv@Matthew:25|. \H“i\ (whom) is attracted from the accusative, object of \h“risen\ (first aorist active indicative of \horiz“\) to the case of the antecedent \andri\. It has been said that Paul left the simple gospel in this address to the council of the Areopagus for philosophy. But did he? He skilfully caught their attention by reference to an altar to an Unknown God whom he interprets to be the Creator of all things and all men who overrules the whole world and who now commands repentance of all and has revealed his will about a day of reckoning when Jesus Christ will be Judge. He has preached the unity of God, the one and only God, has proclaimed repentance, a judgment day, Jesus as the Judge as shown by his Resurrection, great fundamental doctrines, and doubtless had much more to say when they interrupted his address. There is no room here for such a charge against Paul. He rose to a great occasion and made a masterful exposition of God's place and power in human history. {Whereof he hath given assurance} (\pistin parasch“n\). Second aorist active participle of \parech“\, old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence. Note this old use of \pistis\ as conviction or ground of confidence (Hebrews:11:1|) like a note or title-deed, a conviction resting on solid basis of fact. All the other uses of \pistis\ grow out of this one from \peith“\, to persuade. {In that he hath raised him from the dead} (\anastˆsas auton ek nekr“n\). First aorist active participle of \anistˆmi\, causal participle, but literally, "having raised him from the dead." This Paul knew to be a fact because he himself had seen the Risen Christ. Paul has here come to the heart of his message and could now throw light on their misapprehension about "Jesus and the Resurrection" (verse 18|). Here Paul has given the proof of all his claims in the address that seemed new and strange to them.

rwp@Acts:17:34 @{Clave unto him and believed} (\kollˆthentes aut“i episteusan\). First aorist passive of this strong word \kolla“\, to glue to, common in Acts (5:13; strkjv@8:29; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@10:28|) No sermon is a failure which leads a group of men (\andres\) to believe (ingressive aorist of \pisteu“\) in Jesus Christ. Many so-called great or grand sermons reap no such harvest. {Dionysius the Areopagite} (\Dionusios ho Areopagitˆs\). One of the judges of the Court of the Areopagus. That of itself was no small victory. He was one of this college of twelve judges who had helped to make Athens famous. Eusebius says that he became afterwards bishop of the Church at Athens and died a martyr. {A woman named Damaris} (\gunˆ onomati Damaris\). A woman by name Damaris. Not the wife of Dionysius as some have thought, but an aristocratic woman, not necessarily an educated courtezan as Furneaux holds. And there were "others" (\heteroi\) with them, a group strong enough to keep the fire burning in Athens. It is common to say that Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:1-5| alludes to his failure with philosophy in Athens when he failed to preach Christ crucified and he determined never to make that mistake again. On the other hand Paul determined to stick to the Cross of Christ in spite of the fact that the intellectual pride and superficial culture of Athens had prevented the largest success. As he faced Corinth with its veneer of culture and imitation of philosophy and sudden wealth he would go on with the same gospel of the Cross, the only gospel that Paul knew or preached. And it was a great thing to give the world a sermon like that preached in Athens.

rwp@Acts:18:24 @{Apollos} (\Apoll“s\). Genitive \-“\ Attic second declension. Probably a contraction of \Apollonios\ as D has it here. {An Alexandrian} (\Alexandreus\). Alexander the Great founded this city B.C. 332 and placed a colony of Jews there which flourished greatly, one-third of the population at this time. There was a great university and library there. The Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy developed here of which Philo was the chief exponent who was still living. Apollos was undoubtedly a man of the schools and a man of parts. {A learned man} (\anˆr logios\). Or eloquent, as the word can mean either a man of words (like one "wordy," verbose) or a man of ideas, since \logos\ was used either for reason or speech. Apollos was doubtless both learned (mighty in the Scriptures) and eloquent, though eloquence varies greatly in people's ideas. {Mighty in the Scriptures} (\dunatos “n en tais graphais\). Being powerful (\dunatos\ verbal of \dunamai\ and same root as \dunamis\, dynamite, dynamo) in the Scriptures (in the knowledge and the use of the Scriptures), as should be true of every preacher. There is no excuse for ignorance of the Scriptures on the part of preachers, the professed interpreters of the word of God. The last lecture made to the New Testament English class in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary by John A. Broadus was on this passage with a plea for his students to be mighty in the Scriptures. In Alexandria Clement of Alexandria and Origen taught in the Christian theological school.

rwp@Acts:20:21 @{Testifying} (\diamarturomenos\). As Peter did (Acts:2:40|) where Luke uses this same word thoroughly Lucan and Pauline. Songs:again in verses 23,24|. Paul here as in strkjv@Romans:1:16| includes both Jews and Greeks, to the Jew first. {Repentance toward God} (\tˆn eis theon metanoian\) {and faith toward our Lord Jesus} (\kai pistin eis ton kurion hˆm“n Iˆsoun\). These two elements run through the Epistle to the Romans which Paul had recently written and sent from Corinth. These two elements appear in all Paul's preaching whether "to Jews or Gentiles, to philosophers at Athens or to peasants at Lystra, he preached repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus" (Knowling).

rwp@Acts:20:30 @{From among your own selves} (\ex hum“n aut“n\). In sheep's clothing just as Jesus had foretold. The outcome fully justified Paul's apprehensions as we see in Colossians, Ephesians, I and II Timothy, Revelation. False philosophy, immorality, asceticism will lead some astray (Colossians:2:8,18; strkjv@Ephesians:4:14; strkjv@5:6|). John will picture "antichrists" who went out from us because they were not of us (1John:2:18f.|). There is a false optimism that is complacently blind as well as a despondent pessimism that gives up the fight. {Perverse things} (\diestrammena\). Perfect passive participle of \diastreph“\, old verb to turn aside, twist, distort as in strkjv@Acts:13:8,10|. {To draw away} (\tou apospƒin\). Articular genitive present active participle of purpose from \apospa“\, old verb used to draw the sword (Matthew:26:51|), to separate (Luke:22:41; strkjv@Acts:21:1|). The pity of it is that such leaders of dissension can always gain a certain following. Paul's long residence in Ephesus enabled him to judge clearly of conditions there.

rwp@Acts:28:2 @{The barbarians} (\hoi barbaroi\). The Greeks called all men "barbarians" who did not speak Greek (Romans:1:14|), not "barbarians" in our sense of rude and uncivilized, but simply "foreign folk." Diodorus Siculus (V. 12) says that it was a colony of the Phoenicians and so their language was Punic (Page). The word originally meant an uncouth repetition (\barbar\) not understood by others (1Corinthians:14:11|). In strkjv@Colossians:3:11| Paul couples it with Scythian as certainly not Christian. These are (with verse 4| below) the only N.T. instances. {Showed us} (\pareichan\). Imperfect active of \parech“\ with \-an\ instead of \-on\ as \eichan\ in strkjv@Mark:8:7| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 339). It was their habit on this occasion, Luke means, they kept on showing. {No common kindness} (\ou tˆn tuchousan philanthr“pian\). The old word \philanthr“pia\ (\philos\, \anthr“pos\), love of mankind, occurs in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:3:4| (adverb in strkjv@27:3|). See on ¯19:11| for this use of \ou tˆn tuchousan\, "not the kindness that happens every day." They were not "wreckers" to take advantage of the calamity. {They kindled a fire} (\hapsantes puran\). The only N.T. example and verse 3| of the old word \pura\ (from \pur\, fire), a pile of burning fuel (sticks). First aorist active participle of \hapt“\, to set fire to, to kindle. Cf. \anapt“\ in strkjv@Luke:12:49|. {Received us all} (\proselabonto pantas hˆmƒs\). Second aorist middle (indirect indicative of \proslamban“\. They took us all to themselves (cf. strkjv@Acts:18:26|). {The present} (\ton ephest“ta\). Second perfect active participle (intransitive) of \ephistˆmi\, "the rain that stood upon them" (the pouring rain). Only in Luke and Paul in N.T.

rwp@Acts:28:4 @{The beast} (\to thˆrion\). Diminutive of \thˆr\ and so little beast. See on ¯Mark:1:13|. Aristotle and the medical writers apply the word to venomous serpents, the viper in particular (Knowling), as Luke does here. Vincent calls attention to the curious history of our word "_treacle_" for molasses (Latin _theriaca_) from \thˆriakˆ\, an antidote made from the flesh of vipers. Coverdale translates strkjv@Jeremiah:8:22|: "There is no more treacle in Gilead." Jeremy Taylor: "We kill the viper and make treacle of him." {Hanging from his hand} (\kremamenon ek tˆs cheiros autou\). Vivid picture of the snake dangling from Paul's hand. Present middle participle of \kremamai\, late form for \kremannumi\, to hang up, to suspend (cf. strkjv@Galatians:3:13|). {No doubt} (\pant“s\). Literally, By all means, old adverb. Cf. strkjv@21:22; strkjv@Luke:4:23; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:22|. Only by Luke and Paul in the N.T. "They _knew_ that he was a prisoner being taken to Rome on some grave charge, and _inferred_ that the charge was murder" (Page). {Though he hath escaped} (\dias“thenta\). First aorist passive participle of \dias“z“\ (same verb used in strkjv@24:43,44; strkjv@28:1|), so-called concessive use of the participle (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1129). {Yet Justice} (\dikˆ\). An abstraction personified like the Latin _Justitia_ (Page). The natives speak of \Dikˆ\ as a goddess, but we know nothing of such actual worship in Malta, though the Greeks worshipped abstractions as in Athens. {Hath not suffered} (\ouk eiasen\). Did not suffer. They look on Paul as a doomed man as good as dead. These people thought that calamity was proof of guilt, poor philosophy and worse theology.

rwp@Acts:28:7 @{To the chief man of the island} (\t“i pr“t“i tˆs nˆsou\). An official title correct in Malta (Ramsay, _St. Paul_, p. 343). An inscription in Malta calls Prudens "Primate of the Maltese" (\pr“tos Melitai“n\). Here it is plainly a title and not the common use seen in strkjv@13:50; strkjv@25:2; strkjv@28:17|. {Publius} (\Popli“i\). This Greek name (\praenomen\) can be derived either from \Popilius\ or \Publius\ (cf. \publicus\ for \populicus\ from \populus\). Entertained us (\exenisen hˆmƒs\). Paul and his companions (Luke and Aristarchus). Was Julius included? On \xeniz“\ see strkjv@Acts:10:23|. {Courteously} (\philophron“s\). This old adverb from \philophr“n\ (\philos, phren\, friendly mind) occurs here alone in the N.T. In a kindly or friendly manner, all the more so because of the original suspicion of Paul as a criminal.

rwp@Info_Colossians @ PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE Epaphras did not come in vain, for Paul was tremendously stirred by the peril to Christianity from the Gnostics (\hoi gn“stikoi\, the knowing ones). He had won his fight for freedom in Christ against the Judaizers who tried to fasten Jewish sacramentarianism upon spiritual Christianity. Now there is an equal danger of the dissipation of vital Christianity in philosophic speculation. In particular, the peril was keen concerning the Person of Christ when the Gnostics embraced Christianity and applied their theory of the universe to him. They split into factions on the subject of Christ. The Docetic (from \doke“\, to seem) Gnostics held that Jesus did not have a real human body, but only a phantom body. He was, in fact, an aeon and had no real humanity. The Cerinthian (followers of Cerinthus) Gnostics admitted the humanity of the man Jesus, but claimed that the Christ was an aeon that came on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove and left him on the Cross so that only the man Jesus died. At once this heresy sharpened the issue concerning the Person of Christ already set forth in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. Paul met the issue squarely and powerfully portrayed his full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man (both deity and humanity) in opposition to both types of Gnostics. Songs:then Colossians seems written expressly for our own day when so many are trying to rob Jesus Christ of his deity. The Gnostics took varying views of moral issues also as men do now. There were the ascetics with rigorous rules and the licentious element that let down all the bars for the flesh while the spirit communed with God. One cannot understand Colossians without some knowledge of Gnosticism such as may be obtained in such books as Angus's _The Mystery-Religions and Christianity_, Glover's _The Conflict of Religion in the Early Roman Empire_, Kennedy's St. _Paul and the Mystery-Religions_, Lightfoot's _Commentary on Colossians_.

rwp@Colossians:1:13 @{Delivered} (\erusato\). First aorist middle indicative of \ruomai\, old verb, to rescue. This appositional relative clause further describes God the Father's redemptive work and marks the transition to the wonderful picture of the person and work of Christ in nature and grace in verses 14-20|, a full and final answer to the Gnostic depreciation of Jesus Christ by speculative philosophy and to all modern efforts after a "reduced" picture of Christ. God rescued us out from (\ek\) the power (\exousias\) of the kingdom of darkness (\skotous\) in which we were held as slaves. {Translated} (\metestˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \methistˆmi\ and transitive (not intransitive like second aorist \metestˆ\). Old word. See strkjv@1Corinthians:13:2|. Changed us from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. {Of the Son of his love} (\tou huiou tˆs agapˆs autou\). Probably objective genitive (\agapˆs\), the Son who is the object of the Father's love like \agapˆtos\ (beloved) in strkjv@Matthew:3:17|. Others would take it as describing love as the origin of the Son which is true, but hardly pertinent here. But Paul here rules out the whole system of aeons and angels that the Gnostics placed above Christ. It is Christ's Kingdom in which he is King. He has moral and spiritual sovereignty.

rwp@Colossians:1:16 @{All things} (\ta panta\). The universe as in strkjv@Romans:11:35|, a well-known philosophical phrase. It is repeated at the end of the verse. {In him were created} (\en aut“i ektisthˆ\). Paul now gives the reason (\hoti\, for) for the primacy of Christ in the work of creation (16f.|). It is the constative aorist passive indicative \ektisthˆ\ (from \ktiz“\, old verb, to found, to create (Romans:1:25|). This central activity of Christ in the work of creation is presented also in strkjv@John:1:3; strkjv@Hebrews:1:2| and is a complete denial of the Gnostic philosophy. The whole of creative activity is summed up in Christ including the angels in heaven and everything on earth. God wrought through "the Son of his love." All earthly dignities are included. {Have been created} (\ektistai\). Perfect passive indicative of \ktiz“\, "stand created," "remain created." The permanence of the universe rests, then, on Christ far more than on gravity. It is a Christo-centric universe. {Through him} (\di' autou\). As the intermediate and sustaining agent. He had already used \en aut“i\ (in him) as the sphere of activity. {And unto him} (\kai eis auton\). This is the only remaining step to take and Paul takes it (1Corinthians:15:28|) See strkjv@Ephesians:1:10| for similar use of \en aut“i\ of Christ and in strkjv@Colossians:1:19; 20| again we have \en aut“i, di' autou, eis auton\ used of Christ. See strkjv@Hebrews:2:10| for \di' hon\ (because of whom) and \di' hou\ (by means of whom) applied to God concerning the universe (\ta panta\). In strkjv@Romans:11:35| we find \ex autou kai di' autou kai eis auton ta panta\ referring to God. But Paul does not use \ex\ in this connection of Christ, but only \en\, \dia\, and \eis\. See the same distinction preserved in strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6| (\ex\ of God, \dia\, of Christ).

rwp@Colossians:1:17 @{Before all things} (\pro pant“n\). \Pro\ with the ablative case. This phrase makes Paul's meaning plain. The precedence of Christ in time and the preeminence as Creator are both stated sharply. See the claim of Jesus to eternal timeless existence in strkjv@John:8:58; strkjv@17:5|. See also strkjv@Revelation:23:13| where Christ calls himself the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning (\archˆ\) and the End (\telos\). Paul states it also in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f|. {Consist} (\sunestˆken\). Perfect active indicative (intransitive) of \sunistˆmi\, old verb, to place together and here to cohere, to hold together. The word repeats the statements in verse 16|, especially that in the form \ektistai\. Christ is the controlling and unifying force in nature. The Gnostic philosophy that matter is evil and was created by a remote aeon is thus swept away. The Son of God's love is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe which is not evil.

rwp@Colossians:2:8 @{Take heed} (\blepete\). Present active imperative second person plural of \blep“\, common verb for warning like our "look out," "beware," "see to it." {Lest there shall be any one} (\mˆ tis estai\). Negative purpose with the future indicative, though the aorist subjunctive also occurs as in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:6|. {That maketh spoil of you} (\ho sulag“g“n\). Articular present active participle of \sulag“ge“\, late and rare (found here first) verb (from \sulˆ\, booty, and \ag“\, to lead, to carry), to carry off as booty a captive, slave, maiden. Only here in N.T. Note the singular here. There was some one outstanding leader who was doing most of the damage in leading the people astray. {Through his philosophy} (\dia tˆs philosophias\). The only use of the word in the N.T. and employed by Paul because the Gnostics were fond of it. Old word from \philosophos\ (\philos, sophos\, one devoted to the pursuit of wisdom) and in N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:17:18|. Paul does not condemn knowledge and wisdom (see verse 2|), but only this false philosophy, "knowledge falsely named" (\pseud“numos gn“sis\, strkjv@1Timothy:6:20|), and explained here by the next words. {And vain deceit} (\kai kenˆs apatˆs\). Old word for trick, guile, like riches (Matthew:13:22|). Descriptive of the philosophy of the Gnostics. {Tradition} (\paradosin\). Old word from \paradid“mi\, a giving over, a passing on. The word is colourless in itself. The tradition may be good (2Thessalonians:2:15; strkjv@3:6|) or bad (Mark:7:3|). Here it is worthless and harmful, merely the foolish theories of the Gnostics. {Rudiments} (\stoicheia\). Old word for anything in a \stoichos\ (row, series) like the letters of the alphabet, the materials of the universe (2Peter:3:10,12|), elementary teaching (Hebrews:5:12|), elements of Jewish ceremonial training (Acts:15:10; Gal strkjv@4:3,9|), the specious arguments of the Gnostic philosophers as here with all their aeons and rules of life. {And not after Christ} (\kai ou kata Christon\). Christ is the yardstick by which to measure philosophy and all phases of human knowledge. The Gnostics were measuring Christ by their philosophy as many men are doing today. They have it backwards. Christ is the measure for all human knowledge since he is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ THE EPISTLES OF PAUL BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION IMPORTANCE OF PAUL'S WORK It is impossible to put too much emphasis on the life and work of Paul as the great interpreter of Christ. He has been misunderstood in modern times as he was during his career. Some accuse him of perverting the pure gospel of Christ about the Kingdom of God into a theological and ecclesiastical system. He has been accused of rabbinizing the gospel by carrying over his Pharisaism, while others denounce him for Hellenizing the gospel with Greek philosophy and the Greek mystery-religions. But out of all the welter of attacks Paul's Epistles stand as the marvellous expression of his own conception of Christ and the application of the gospel to the life of the Christians in the Graeco-Roman world in which they lived by eternal principles that apply to us today. In order to understand Paul's Epistles one must know the Acts of the Apostles in which Luke has drawn with graphic power the sudden change of the foremost opponent of Christ into the chief expounder and proclaimer of the gospel of the Risen Christ. The Acts and the Epistles supplement each other in a marvellous way, though chiefly in an incidental fashion. It is by no means certain that Luke had access to any of Paul's Epistles before he wrote the Acts, though that was quite possible for the early Epistles. It does not greatly matter for Luke had access to Paul himself both in Caesarea and in Rome. The best life of Paul one can get comes by combining the Acts with the Epistles if he knows how to do it. Paul is Luke's hero, but he has not overdrawn the picture in the Acts as is made clear by the Epistles themselves which reveal his own grasp and growth. The literature on Paul is vast and constantly growing. He possesses a fascination for students of the New Testament and of Christianity. It is impossible here to allude even to the most important in so vast a field. Conybeare and Howson's _Life and Epistles of St. Paul_ still has value. Sir W. M. Ramsay has a small library on Paul and his Epistles. Stalker's masterful little book on Paul still grips men as does the work of Sabatier. Deissmann's _St. Paul _ continues to throw light on the great Apostle to the Gentiles. Those who wish my own view at greater length will find them in my various books on Paul (_Epochs in the Life of Paul_, _Paul the Interpreter of Christ_, etc.).

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ The study of Paul's Epistles in the order of their writing is the best possible way of seeing his own growth as a theologian and interpreter of Christ. Sabatier long ago laid emphasis on this point in his book _The Apostle Paul_ as did Matheson in _The Spiritual Development of Paul_. It is a tragedy to have to read Paul's Epistles as printed in the usual Greek text of Westcott and Hort and the English translations, beginning with Romans and ending with Philemon. In the manuscripts that give Paul's Epistles Romans comes first as the largest and most important, but Titus and Philemon come after II Timothy (the last just before his death). We know something of Paul's early preaching how he laid emphasis on the Messiahship of Jesus proven by his resurrection, Paul himself having seen the Risen Christ (Acts:9:22|). This conviction and experience lay at the foundation of all his work and he never faltered concerning it (Acts:17:3). In the earliest sermon of which we have a full report Paul proclaims justification by faith in Christ with forgiveness of sins (Acts:13:38f.|), blessings not obtained by the law of Moses. In the unfolding life of Paul he grappled with great problems of Jewish rabbinism and Greek philosophy and mystery-religions and Paul himself grew in stature as he courageously and victoriously faced Judaizer and Gnostic. There are scholars who claim that Paul surrendered to the appeal of Gnostic sacramentarianism and so went back on his great doctrine of justification by faith, not by works. It will be shown at the proper time that this view misinterprets Paul's attitude. The events given by Luke in the Acts fit in with the self-revelation of Paul in his own Epistles as we read them. Each one of the four groups of Epistles has a slightly different style and vocabulary as is natural when one comes to think of it. The same thing is true of the plays of Shakespeare and the poems of Milton. Style is the man, Buffon says. Yes, but style is also a function of the subject. Particularly is this true of vocabulary which has to vary with the different topics treated. But style in the same man varies with different ages. Ripened old age mellows the exuberance of youth and the passionate vehemence of manhood. We shall see Paul himself in his Epistles, letting himself go in various ways and in different moods. But in all the changing phases of his life and work there is the same masterful man who glories in being the slave of Jesus Christ and the Apostle to the Gentiles. The passion of Paul is Christ and one can feel the throb of the heart of the chief of sinners who became the chief of saints in all his Epistles. There is the Pauline glow and glory in them all.

rwp@Galatians:4:9 @{Now that ye have come to know God} (\nun de gnontes\). Fine example of the ingressive second aorist active participle of \gin“sk“\, come to know by experience through faith in Christ. {Rather to be known of God} (\mallon de gn“sthentes hupo theou\). First aorist passive participle of the same verb. He quickly turns it round to the standpoint of God's elective grace reaching them (verse 6|). {How} (\p“s\). "A question full of wonder" (Bengel). See strkjv@1:6|. {Turn ye back again?} (\epistrephete palin?\). Present active indicative, "Are ye turning again?" See \metatithesthe\ in strkjv@1:6|. {The weak and beggarly rudiments} (\ta asthenˆ kai pt“cha stoicheia\). The same \stoicheia\ in verse 3| from which they had been delivered, "weak and beggarly," still in their utter impotence from the Pharisaic legalism and the philosophical and religious legalism and the philosophical and religious quests of the heathen as shown by Angus's _The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World_. These were eagerly pursued by many, but they were shadows when caught. It is pitiful today to see some men and women leave Christ for will o' the wisps of false philosophy. {Over again} (\palin an“then\). Old word, from above (\an“\) as in strkjv@Matthew:27:51|, from the first (Luke:1:3|), then "over again" as here, back to where they were before (in slavery to rites and rules).

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE PURPOSE The author states it repeatedly. He urges the Jewish Christians to hold fast the confession which they have made in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour. Their Jewish neighbours have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism. The Judaizers tried to make Jews out of Gentile Christians and to fasten Judaism upon Christianity with a purely sacramental type of religion as the result. Paul won freedom for evangelical and spiritual Christianity against the Judaizers as shown in the Corinthian Epistles, Galatians, and Romans. The Gnostics in subtle fashion tried to dilute Christianity with their philosophy and esoteric mysteries and here again Paul won his fight for the supremacy of Christ over all these imaginary \aeons\ (Colossians and Ephesians). But in Hebrews the author is battling to stop a stampede from Christ back to Judaism, a revolt (apostasy) in truth from the living God. These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. The author turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God's Son and man's Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed. Moffatt terms it "a profound homily."

rwp@Hebrews:1:3 @{Being} (\“n\). Absolute and timeless existence (present active participle of \eimi\) in contrast with \genomenos\ in verse 4| like \ˆn\ in strkjv@John:1:1| (in contrast with \egeneto\ in strkjv@1:14|) and like \huparch“n\ and \genomenos\ in strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f|. {The effulgence of his glory} (\apaugasma tˆs doxˆs\). The word \apaugasma\, late substantive from \apaugaz“\, to emit brightness (\augˆ, augaz“\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4|), here only in the N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both senses are true of Christ in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in strkjv@John:12:45; strkjv@14:9|. "The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos" (Moffatt). The meaning "effulgence" suits the context better, though it gives the idea of eternal generation of the Son (John:1:1|), the term Father applied to God necessarily involving Son. See this same metaphor in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6|. {The very image of his substance} (\charaktˆr tˆs hupostase“s\). \Charaktˆr\ is an old word from \charass“\, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending \=tˆr\) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by \charagma\ (Acts:17:29; strkjv@Revelation:13:16f.|). Menander had already used (Moffatt) \charaktˆr\ in the sense of our "character." The word occurs in the inscriptions for "person" as well as for "exact reproduction" of a person. The word \hupostasis\ for the being or essence of God "is a philosophical rather than a religious term" (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In strkjv@11:1| \hypostasis\ is like the "title-deed" idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4| in his controversy with Arius. Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11| pictures the real and eternal deity of Christ free from the philosophical language here employed. But even Paul's simpler phrase \morphˆ theou\ (the form of God) has difficulties of its own. The use of \Logos\ in strkjv@John:1:1-18| is parallel to strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4|. {And upholding} (\pher“n te\). Present active participle of \pher“\ closely connected with \“n\ (being) by \te\ and like strkjv@Colossians:1:17| in idea. The newer science as expounded by Eddington and Jeans is in harmony with the spiritual and personal conception of creation here presented. {By the word of his power} (\t“i rˆmati tˆs duname“s autou\). Instrumental case of \rˆma\ (word). See strkjv@11:3| for \rˆmati theou\ (by the word of God) as the explanation of creation like Genesis, but here \autou\ refers to God's Son as in strkjv@1:2|. {Purification of sins} (\katharismon t“n hamarti“n\). \Katharismos\ is from \kathariz“\, to cleanse (Matthew:8:3; strkjv@Hebrews:9:14|), here only in Hebrews, but in same sense of cleansing from sins, strkjv@2Peter:1:9; strkjv@Job:7:21|. Note middle participle \poiˆsamenos\ like \heuramenos\ in strkjv@9:12|. This is the first mention of the priestly work of Christ, the keynote of this Epistle. {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). First aorist active of \kathiz“\, "took his seat," a formal and dignified act. {Of the Majesty on high} (\tˆs megalosunˆs en hupsˆlois\). Late word from \megas\, only in LXX (Deuteronomy:32:3; strkjv@2Samuel:7:23|, etc.), Aristeas, strkjv@Hebrews:1:3; strkjv@8:1; strkjv@Jude:1:25|. Christ resumed his original dignity and glory (John:17:5|). The phrase \en hupsˆlois\ occurs in the Psalms (Psalms:93:4|), here only in N.T., elsewhere \en hupsistois\ in the highest (Matthew:21:9; strkjv@Luke:2:14|) or \en tois epouraniois\ in the heavenlies (Ephesians:1:3,20|). Jesus is here pictured as King (Prophet and Priest also) Messiah seated at the right hand of God.

rwp@Hebrews:2:15 @{And might deliver} (\kai apallaxˆi\). Further purpose with the first aorist active subjunctive of \appallass“\, old verb to change from, to set free from, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:12:58; strkjv@Acts:19:12|. {Through fear of death} (\phob“i thanatou\). Instrumental case of \phobos\. The ancients had great fear of death though the philosophers like Seneca argued against it. There is today a flippant attitude towards death with denial of the future life and rejection of God. But the author of Hebrews saw judgement after death (9:27f.|). Hence our need of Christ to break the power of sin and Satan in death. {All their lifetime} (\dia pantos tou zˆin\). Present active infinitive with \pas\ and the article in the genitive case with \dia\, "through all the living." {Subject to bondage} (\enochoi douleias\). Old adjective from \enech“\, "held in," "bound to," with genitive, bond-slaves of fear, a graphic picture. Jesus has the keys of life and death and said: "I am the life." Thank God for that.

rwp@Hebrews:5:2 @{Who can bear gently} (\metriopathein dunamenos\). Present active infinitive of the late verb \metriopathe“\ (\metrios\, moderate, \pate“\, to feel or suffer). It is a philosophical term used by Aristotle to oppose the \apatheia\ (lack of feeling) of the Stoics. Philo ranks it below \apatheia\. Josephus (_Ant_. XII. 32) uses it of the moderation of Vespasian and Titus towards the Jews. It occurs here only in the N.T. "If the priest is cordially to plead with God for the sinner, he must bridle his natural disgust at the loathsomeness of sensuality, his impatience at the frequently recurring fall, his hopeless alienation from the hypocrite and the superficial, his indignation at any confession he hears from the penitent" (Dods). {With the ignorant} (\tois agnoousin\). Dative case of the articular present active participle of \agnoe“\, old verb not to know (Mark:9:32|). {And erring} (\kai plan“menois\). Present middle participle (dative case) of \plana“\. The one article with both participles probably makes it a hendiadys, sins of ignorance (both accidence and sudden passion) as opposed to high-handed sins of presumption and deliberate purpose. People who sinned "willingly" (\hekousi“s\, strkjv@10:26|) had no provision in the Levitical system. For deliberate apostasy (3:12; strkjv@10:26|) no pardon is offered. {Is compassed with infirmity} (\perikeitai astheneian\). Present passive indicative of the old verb \perikeimai\ here used transitively as in strkjv@Acts:28:20| (\halusin\, chain). The priest himself has weakness lying around him like a chain. Not so Jesus.

rwp@Hebrews:11:1 @{Now faith is} (\estin de pistis\). He has just said that "we are of faith" (10:39|), not of apostasy. Now he proceeds in a chapter of great eloquence and passion to illustrate his point by a recital of the heroes of faith whose example should spur them to like loyalty now. {The assurance of things hoped for} (\elpizomen“n hupostasis\). {Hupostasis} is a very common word from Aristotle on and comes from \huphistˆmi\ (\hupo\, under, \histˆmi\, intransitive), what stands under anything (a building, a contract, a promise). See the philosophical use of it in strkjv@1:3|, the sense of assurance (une assurance certaine, M‚n‚goz) in strkjv@3:14|, that steadiness of mind which holds one firm (2Corinthians:9:4|). It is common in the papyri in business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions. "And as this is the essential meaning in strkjv@Hebrews:11:1| we venture to suggest the translation 'Faith is the _title-deed_ of things hoped for'" (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_, etc.). {The proving of things not seen} (\pragmat“n elegchos ou blepomen“n\). The only N.T. example of \elegchos\ (except Textus Receptus in strkjv@2Timothy:3:16| for \elegmon\). Old and common word from \elegch“\ (Matthew:18:15|) for "proof" and then for "conviction." Both uses occur in the papyri and either makes sense here, perhaps "conviction" suiting better though not in the older Greek.

rwp@Hebrews:13:5 @{Be ye free from the love of money} (\aphilarguros ho tropos\). No copula, but supply \esto\: "Let your manner of life (\tropos\, way, strkjv@Matthew:23:37|), be without love of money" (\aphilarguros\, double compound), once found only in the N.T., here and strkjv@1Timothy:3:3|, but now several times--or the adverb \aphilargur“s\ --in papyri and inscriptions (Deissmann, _Light_, etc., pp. 85f.). Alpha privative and \philos\ and \arguros\. The N.T. is full of the peril of money on the character as modern life is also. {Content with such things as ye have} (\arkoumenoi tois parousin\). Present passive participle of \arke“\, to suffice, to be content as in strkjv@Luke:3:14|. Cf. \autarkˆs\ in strkjv@Phillipians:4:11|. Here in the nominative plural with no substantive or pronoun (anacoluthon, as in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:7|) or the participle used as a principal verb as in strkjv@Romans:12:16|. "Contented with the present things" (\tois parousin\, associative instrumental case of \ta paronta\, present active neuter plural participle of \pareimi\, to be present or on hand). {For himself hath said} (\autos gar eirˆken\). God himself as in strkjv@Acts:20:33| of Christ. Perfect active indicative as in strkjv@1:13; strkjv@4:3f.; strkjv@10:9|. The quotation is a free paraphrase of strkjv@Genesis:28:15; strkjv@Deuteronomy:31:8; strkjv@Joshua:1:5; strkjv@1Chronicles:28:20|. Philo (de Confus. Ling. 32) has it in this form, "a popular paraphrase" (Moffatt). Note the five negatives strengthening each other (\ou mˆ\ with the second aorist active subjunctive \an“\ from \aniˆmi\, to relate, as in strkjv@Acts:16:26|; \oud' ou mˆ\ with second aorist active subjunctive \egkatalip“\ from \egkataleip“\, to leave behind, as in strkjv@Matthew:27:46; strkjv@2Timothy:4:10|). A noble promise in times of depression.

rwp@Info_James @ THE STYLE James assumes the doctrinal features of Christianity, but he is concerned mainly with the ethical and social aspects of the gospel that Jewish followers of Christ may square their lives with the gospel which they believe and profess. But this fact does not justify Luther in calling the Epistle of James "a veritable Epistle of straw." Luther imagined that James contradicted Paul's teaching of justification by faith. That is not true and the criticism of Luther is unjust. We shall see that, though James and Paul use the same words (faith, works, justify), they mean different things by them. It is possible that both Paul and Peter had read the Epistle of James, though by no means certain. M. Jones (_New Testament in the Twentieth Century_, p. 316) thinks that the author was familiar with Stoic philosophy. This is also possible, though he may have learned it only indirectly through the Wisdom of Solomon and Philo. What is true is that the author writes in the easy and accurate _Koin‚_ Greek of a cultivated Jew (the literary _Koin‚_, not the vernacular), though not the artificial or stilted language of a professional stylist. Principal Patrick (_James the Lord's Brother_, p. 298) holds that he "had a wide knowledge of Classical Greek." This does not follow, though he does use the manner "of the Hellenistic diatribe" (Ropes, _Int. and Crit. Comm_., p. 19) so common at that time. Ropes (pp. 10-22) points out numerous parallels between James and the popular moral addresses of the period, familiar since the days of Socrates and at its height in Seneca and Epictetus. The use of an imaginary interlocutor is one instance (James:2:18f.; strkjv@5:13f.|) as is the presence of paradox (James:1:2,10; strkjv@2:5|; etc.). But the style of James is even more kin to that seen in the Jewish wisdom literature like Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon, etc. It is thus both tract and Epistle, a brief Christian sermon on a high plane for a noble purpose. But it is all natural and not artificial. The metaphors are many, but brief and remind one constantly of the Master's use of them in the Sermon on the Mount. Did not Mary the mother of Jesus and James make frequent use of such homely parables? The author shows acquaintance with the LXX, but there are few Hebraisms in the language, though the style is Hebraic, as is the whole tone of the book (Hebraic and Christian). "The style is especially remarkable for constant hidden allusions to our Lord's sayings, such as we find in the first three Gospels" (Hort).

rwp@James:2:23 @{Was fulfilled} (\eplˆr“thˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \plˆro“\, the usual verb for fulfilling Scripture. Songs:James quotes strkjv@Genesis:15:6| as proving his point in verse 21| that Abraham had works with his faith, the very same passage that Paul quotes in strkjv@Romans:4:3| to show that Abraham's faith preceded his circumcision and was the basis of his justification. And both James and Paul are right, each to illustrate a different point. {And he was called the friend of God} (\kai philos theou eklˆthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \kalˆo\. Not a part of the Scripture quoted. Philo calls Abraham the friend of God and see _Jubilees_ strkjv@19:9; strkjv@30:20. The Arabs today speak of Abraham as God's friend. It was evidently a common description before James used it, as in strkjv@Isaiah:41:8; strkjv@2Chronicles:20:7|.

rwp@James:3:6 @{The tongue is a fire} (\hˆ gl“ssa pur\). Songs:necessarily since there is no article with \pur\ (apparently same word as German _feuer_, Latin _purus_, English _pure, fire_). This metaphor of fire is applied to the tongue in strkjv@Proverbs:16:27; strkjv@26:18-22|; Sirach strkjv@28:22. {The world of iniquity} (\ho kosmos tˆs adikias\). A difficult phrase, impossible to understand according to Ropes as it stands. If the comma is put after \pur\ instead of after \adikias\, then the phrase may be the predicate with \kathistatai\ (present passive indicative of \kathistˆmi\, "is constituted," or the present middle "presents itself"). Even so, \kosmos\ remains a difficulty, whether it means the "ornament" (1Peter:3:3|) or "evil world" (James:1:27|) or just "world" in the sense of widespread power for evil. The genitive \adikias\ is probably descriptive (or qualitative). Clearly James means to say that the tongue can play havoc in the members of the human body. {Which defileth the whole body} (\hˆ spilousa holon to s“ma\). Present active participle of \spilo“\ late _Koin‚_, verb, to stain from \spilos\ (spot, also late word, in N.T. only in strkjv@Ephesians:5:27; strkjv@2Peter:2:13|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Judges:1:23|. Cf. strkjv@1:27| \aspilon\ (unspotted). {Setteth on fire} (\phlogizousa\). Present active participle of \phlogiz“\, old verb, to set on fire, to ignite, from \phlox\ (flame), in N.T. only in this verse. See \anaptei\ (verse 5|). {The wheel of nature} (\ton trochon genese“s\). Old word for wheel (from \trech“\, to run), only here in N.T. "One of the hardest passages in the Bible" (Hort). To what does \trochon\ refer? For \genese“s\ see strkjv@1:23| apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests "the wheel of birth" (cf. strkjv@Matthew:1:1,18|). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or \kuklos\, cycle, in place of \trochos\), but either in a physiological or a philosophical sense. James may have caught the metaphor from the current use, but certainly he has no such Orphic or Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls, "the unending round of death and rebirth" (Ropes). The wheel of life may be considered either in motion or standing still, though setting on fire implies motion. There is no reference to the zodiac. {And is set on fire by hell} (\kai phlogizomenˆ hupo gehennˆs\). Present passive participle of \phlogiz“\, giving the continual source of the fire in the tongue. For the metaphor of fire with \gehenna\ see strkjv@Matthew:5:22|.

rwp@James:4:4 @{Ye adulteresses} (\moichalides\). \Moichoi kai\ (ye adulterers) is spurious (Syrian text only). The feminine form here is a common late word from the masculine \moichoi\. It is not clear whether the word is to be taken literally here as in strkjv@Romans:7:3|, or figuratively for all unfaithful followers of Christ (like an unfaithful bride), as in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:1f.; strkjv@Ephesians:5:24-28| (the Bride of Christ). Either view makes sense in this context, probably the literal view being more in harmony with the language of verses 2f|. In that case James may include more than Christians in his view, though Paul talks plainly to church members about unchastity (Ephesians:5:3-5|). {Enmity with God} (\echthra tou theou\). Objective genitive \theou\ with \echthra\ (predicate and so without article), old word from \echthros\, enemy (Romans:5:10|), with \eis theon\ (below and strkjv@Romans:8:7|). {Whosoever therefore would be} (\hos ean oun boulˆthˆi\). Indefinite relative clause with \hos\ and modal \ean\ and the first aorist passive (deponent) subjunctive of \boulomai\, to will (purpose). {A friend of the world} (\philos tou kosmou\). Predicate nominative with infinitive \einai\ agreeing with \hos\. See strkjv@2:23| for \philos theou\ (friend of God). {Maketh himself} (\kathistatai\). Present passive (not middle) indicative as in strkjv@3:6|, "is constituted," "is rendered." {An enemy of God} (\echthros tou theou\). Predicate nominative and anarthrous and objective genitive (\theou\).

rwp@Info_John @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE (SINCE 1880) ABBOT, EZRA, _On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1880). ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, _The Fourth Gospel_ (1891). ABBOTT, E.A., _Johannine Vocabulary_ (1935).,_Johannine Grammar_ (1906). APPEL, _Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums_ (1915). ASKWITH, E.H., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). BACON, B.W., _The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate_ (1910). BALDENSPERGER, W., _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_ (1898). BARTH, K., _The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels_ (1907). BAUER, W., _Das Johannes-Evangelium_. 2 Aufl. (1925). BELZER, _Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes_ (1905). BERNARD, J. H., _Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1929), in Int. Crit. Comm. BERT, _Das Evangelium des Johannes_ (1922). BLASS, F., _Evangelium secundum Johannem_ (1902). BROOKE, A. E., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 289 to 328. 1909). BURCH, VACHER, _The Structure and Message of St. John's Gospel_ (1928). BURNEY, C. F., _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). CALMES, _L'Evangile selon S. Jean_ (1904). CANDLER, W. A., _Practical Studies in the Gospel of John_ (3 vols,, 1912-15). CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, _The Johannine Writings_ (1927). CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). CHARNWOOD, LORD, _According to St. John_ (1925). CLEMEN, C., _Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums_ (1912). D'ALMA, _Lamentations:Controverse du quatrieme evangile_ (1908).,Philo et le quotrieme evangile_ (1911). DAUSCH' _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1909). DELFF, H., _Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_ (1890).,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten Evangeliums (1890). DODS, M., _Expositor's Bible_ (2 vols., 1891).,Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1897). DRUMMOND, JAMES, _An Inquiry into the Character and Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1904). EVANS, H. H., _St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel_ (1888). EWALD, P., _Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Losung_ (1890). FOUARD, S., _Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique_ (1904). GARDNER, P., _The Ephesian Gospel_ (1915). GARVIE, A. E., _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922). GOBEL, _Die Reden des Herrn nach Johannes_ (2 vols., 1906, 1910). GODET, F., _Comm. on the Gospel of St. John_ (Tr., 2 vols., 1886--90). GOGUEL, M., _Les sources du recit Johannique de la Passion_ (1910).,Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1924). GORDON, S. D., _Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel_. GORE, C., _Exposition of the Gospel of John_ (1920). GREEN, A. V., _The Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910). GREGORY, C. R., _Wellhausen und Johannes_ (1910). GRILL, J., _Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums_ (1902). GUMBEL, _Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas ev_. (1911). HARRIS, J. RENDEL, _The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel_ (1917). HAYES, D. A., _John and His Writings_ (1917). HOERNLE, E. S., _The Record of the Loved Disciple_ etc. (1913). HOLLAND, H. S., _The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth Gospel_ (1919).,_The Fourth Gospel_ (1923). HOLTZMANN, H. J., _Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes_. 3 Aufl. (1908). HOLTZMANN, _Hand-Comm_. 3 Aufl. von Bauer (1908). HOVEY, A. H., _In American Comm_. (1885). HOWARD, W. F., _The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation_ (1931). IVERACH, JAMES, _Gospel of John_ (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). JACKSON, H. L., _The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism_ (1906).,_The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). JOHNSTON, J. S., _The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel_ (1909). KEISKER, _The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). KREYENBUHL, _Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage_ (1905). LARFIELD, _Die beide Johannes von Ephesus_ (1914). LEATHES, STANLEY, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_. LEPIN, _L'origine du quatrieme evangile_ (1907; 1927).,_Lamentations:valeur historique du quatrieme euangile_ (1910). LEWIS, F. G., _The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel_ (1908). LEWIS, F. G., _Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). LIGHTFOOT, J. B., _Biblical Essays_ (pages 1-198; I-III, 1893). LLOYD, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932). LOISY, A., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1903). LOWRIE, _The Doctrine of John_ (1899). LYMAN, MARY ELY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today_ (1931). MANSON, W., _The Incarnate Glory_ (1923). MAURICE, F. D., _The Gospel of St. John_ (1906). McGREGoR, G. H., _The Moffatt Commentary_ (1930). MONTGOMERY, J. A., _The Origin of the Gospel According to St. John_ (1923). MOUSE, _Johannes und Paulus_ (1915). MUIRHEAD, L. A., _The Message of the Fourth Gospel_ (1925). NOLLOTH, C. F., _The Fourth Evangelist_ (1925). NUNN, H. P. V., _The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel (1927). ORR, JAMES, _The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced from Internal Evidence_. OVERBECK, _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1911). PLUMMER, A., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1913). REVILLE, J., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1901). REYNOLDS, H. R., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D. B., 1899). RICHMOND, W., _The Gospel of the Rejection_ (1906). ROBERTSON, A. T., _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_ (1916). ROBINSON, A., _The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel_ (1929). ROBINSON, B. W., _The Gospel of John_ (1925). SANDAY, W., _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_ (1905). SCHLATTER, _Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten_ (1903). SCHMIEDEL, P. W., _The Johannine Writings_ (1908). SCOTT, E. F., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology_ (1906). SCOTT, E. F., _The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., _St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet_ (1909). SELBIE, W. B., _Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the Fourth Gospel_ (1916). SMITH, J. R., _The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SMITH, P. V., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance_ (1926). SPEER, R. E., _The Greatest Book in the World_ (1915). SPITTA, F., _Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu_ (1910). STANGE, _Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion_ (1914). STANTON, V. H., _The Fourth Gospel_ (Part III of Gospels as Hist. Documents, 1921). STEVENS, G. B., _The Johannine Theology_ (1898). STRACHAN, R. H., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D C G 1906).,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ- ment_ (1917).,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian_ (1925). TILLMANN, FRITZ, _Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und Erklart_ (1931). VEDDER, H. C., _The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problems_ (1917). WARSCHAUER, J., _The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. WATKINS, W. H., _Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela- tion to the Fourth Gospel_ (1890). WATSON, H. A., _The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel_ (1916). WEARING, _The World View of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). WEISS, B., _Meyer Komm_. 9 Aufl. (1902).,_Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk_ (1911). WELLHAUSEN, J., _Das Evangelium Johannis_ (1908). WENDT, H. H., _The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Value_ (1911).,_Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium_ (1911). WESTCOTT, B. F., _The Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1908). WHITELAW, _The Gospel of John_ (1888). WINDISCH, H., _Johannes und die Synoptiker_ (1927). WORSLEY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists_ (1911). WREDE, W., _Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium_ (1903). ZAHN, TH., _Dal Evangelium Johannis (1908). 6 Aufl. (1921). strkjv@John:1:1 @{In the beginning} (\en archˆi\). \Archˆ\ is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew _be reshith_ in strkjv@Genesis:1:1|. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. {Was} (\ˆn\). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of \eimi\ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (\egeneto\, became) appears in verse 14| for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in strkjv@8:58| "before Abraham came (\genesthai\) I am" (\eimi\, timeless existence). {The Word} (\ho logos\). \Logos\ is from \leg“\, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. \Logos\ is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (\anima mundi\) and Marcus Aurelius used \spermatikos logos\ for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew _memra_ was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in strkjv@Proverbs:8:23|. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (_The Origin of the _Prologue to St. John_, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term \Logos\, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term \Logos\ is applied to Christ only in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:13; strkjv@1John:1:1| "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f.; strkjv@Colossians:1:17|) and in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f.| and in strkjv@John:17:5|. This term suits John's purpose better than \sophia\ (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the \aeon\ Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (\sarx egeneto\, verse 14|) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. {With God} (\pros ton theon\). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. \Pros\ with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In strkjv@1John:2:1| we have a like use of \pros\: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (\paraklˆton echomen pros ton patera\). See \pros“pon pros pros“pon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gn“ston tˆs pros allˆlous sunˆtheias\, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., _Vocabulary_) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, _Origin of Prologue_, p. 8) that the use of \pros\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:3| is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is _Koin‚_, not old Attic. In strkjv@John:17:5| John has \para soi\ the more common idiom. {And the Word was God} (\kai theos ˆn ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos ˆn ho logos\. That would mean that all of God was expressed in \ho logos\ and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (\ho logos\) and the predicate without it (\theos\) just as in strkjv@John:4:24| \pneuma ho theos\ can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." Songs:in strkjv@1John:4:16| \ho theos agapˆ estin\ can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 767f. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:14| \ho Logos sarx egeneto\, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

rwp@John:1:3 @{All things} (\panta\). The philosophical phrase was \ta panta\ (the all things) as we have it in strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6; strkjv@Romans:11:36; strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. In verse 10| John uses \ho kosmos\ (the orderly universe) for the whole. {Were made} (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of \ginomai\, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the continuous existence of \ˆn\ in verses 1,2|. All things "came into being." Creation is thus presented as a becoming (\ginomai\) in contrast with being (\eimi\). {By him} (\di' autou\). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews:1:2|) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Colossians:1:16|). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6|, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (\ex hou\) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (\di' hou\). {Without him} (\ch“ris autou\). Old adverbial preposition with the ablative as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:14|, "apart from." John adds the negative statement for completion, another note of his style as in strkjv@John:1:20; strkjv@1John:1:5|. Thus John excludes two heresies (Bernard) that matter is eternal and that angels or aeons had a share in creation. {Not anything} (\oude hen\). "Not even one thing." Bernard thinks the entire Prologue is a hymn and divides it into strophes. That is by no means certain. It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made" (\ho gegonen\) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with \ho gegonen\. The early uncials had no punctuation.

rwp@John:1:14 @{And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\). See verse 3| for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than \ˆn\ of verse 1|. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in strkjv@Matthew:1:16-25; strkjv@Luke:1:28-38|, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:4:4; strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.; strkjv@1Timothy:3:16; strkjv@Hebrews:2:14|. "To explain the exact significance of \egeneto\ in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. {Dwelt among us} (\eskˆn“sen en hˆmin\). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of \skˆno“\, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (\skˆnos\ or \skˆnˆ\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:7-15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@21:3|. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. {We beheld his glory} (\etheasametha tˆn doxan autou\). First aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (James:2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ again in strkjv@1:32| (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and strkjv@1:38| of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. Songs:also strkjv@4:35; strkjv@11:45; strkjv@1John:1:1f.; strkjv@4:12,14|. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. {As of the only begotten from the Father} (\h“s monogenous para patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In strkjv@John:3:16; strkjv@1John:4:9| we have \ton monogenˆ\ referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of \patˆr\ of God in relation to the Logos. \Monogenˆs\ (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in strkjv@1:18|) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (\tekna\) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in strkjv@Luke:7:12; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@9:38|. It occurs also in the LXX and strkjv@Hebrews:11:17|, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words \para patros\ (from the Father) are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. strkjv@6:46; strkjv@7:29|, etc.) or with \doxan\ (cf. strkjv@5:41,44|). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. strkjv@8:54; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|. {Full} (\plˆrˆs\). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275). As nominative \plˆrˆs\ can agree with the subject of \eskˆn“sen\. {Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai alˆtheias\). Curiously this great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in strkjv@1:14,16,17|, though \alˆtheia\ (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In strkjv@1:17| these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.

rwp@John:5:20 @{Loveth} (\philei\). In strkjv@3:35| we have \agapƒi\ from \agapa“\, evidently one verb expressing as noble a love as the other. Sometimes a distinction (21:17|) is made, but not here, unless \phile“\ presents the notion of intimate friendship (\philos\, friend), fellowship, the affectionate side, while \agapa“\ (Latin _diligo_) is more the intelligent choice. But John uses both verbs for the mystery of love of the Father for the Son. {Greater works than these} (\meizona tout“n erga\). \Tout“n\ is ablative case after the comparative \meizona\ (from \megas\, great). John often uses \erga\ for the miracles of Christ (5:36; strkjv@7:3,21; strkjv@10:25,32,38|, etc.). It is the Father who does these works (14:10|). There is more to follow. Even the disciples will surpass what Christ is doing in the extent of the work (14:12|). \Deixei\ is future active indicative of \deiknumi\, to show. See also strkjv@10:32|. {That ye may marvel} (\hina humeis thaumazˆte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \thaumaz“\. Wonder belongs to childhood and to men of knowledge. Modern science has increased the occasion for wonder. Clement of Alexandria has a saying of Jesus: "He that wonders shall reign, and he that reigns shall rest."

rwp@John:10:5 @{A stranger} (\allotri“i\). Literally, "One belonging to another" (from \allos\, opposed to \idios\). A shepherd of another flock, it may be, not necessarily the thief and robber of verse 1|. Note associative instrumental case after \akolouthˆsousin\ (future active indicative of \akolouthe“\, verse 4|). Note the strong double negative \ou mˆ\ here with the future indicative, though usually with the aorist subjunctive (Aleph L W have it here). They simply will not follow such a man or woman, these well-trained sheep will not. {But will flee from him} (\alla pheuxontai ap' autou\). Future middle of \pheug“\ and ablative case with \apo\. They will flee as if from a wolf or from the plague. Alas and alas, if only our modern pastors had the sheep (old and young) so trained that they would run away from and not run after the strange voices that call them to false philosophy, false psychology, false ethics, false religion, false life.

rwp@John:11:3 @{Sent saying} (\apesteilan legousai\). First aorist active indicative of \apostell“\ and present active participle. The message was delivered by the messenger. {Thou lovest} (\phileis\). \Phile“\ means to love as a friend (see \philos\ in verse 11|) and so warmly, while \agapa“\ (akin to \agamai\, to admire, and \agathos\, good) means high regard. Here both terms occur of the love of Jesus for Lazarus (\ˆgapa\ in verse 5|). Both occur of the Father's love for the Son (\agapƒi\ in strkjv@3:35|, \philei\ in strkjv@5:20|). Hence the distinction is not always observed.

rwp@John:12:24 @{Except} (\ean mˆ\). Negative condition of third class (undetermined, supposable case) with second aorist active participle \pes“n\ (from \pipt“\, to fall) and the second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnˆsk“\, to die. {A grain of wheat} (\ho kokkos tou sitou\). Rather, "the grain of wheat." {By itself alone} (\autos monos\). Both predicate nominatives after \menei\. It is not necessary to think (nor likely) that Jesus has in mind the Eleusinian mysteries which became a symbol of the mystery of spring. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:36| uses the same illustration of the resurrection that Jesus does here. Jesus shows here the paradox that life comes through death. Whether the Greeks heard him or not we do not know. If so, they heard something not in Greek philosophy, the Christian ideal of sacrifice, "and this was foreign to the philosophy of Greece" (Bernard). Jesus had already spoken of himself as the bread of life (6:35-65|). {But if it die} (\ean de apothanˆi\). Parallel condition of the third class. Grains of wheat have been found in Egyptian tombs three or four thousand years old, but they are now dead. They bore no fruit.

rwp@John:12:25 @{Loseth it} (\apolluei autˆn\). The second paradox. Present active indicative of \apollu“\. This great saying was spoken at various times as in strkjv@Mark:8:35| (Matthew:16:25; strkjv@Luke:9:24|) and strkjv@Mark:10:39| (Luke:17:33|). See those passages for discussion of \psuchˆ\ (life or soul). For "he that hateth his life" (\ho mis“n tˆn psuchˆn autou\) see the sharp contrasts in Luke strkjv@14:26-35| where \mise“\ is used of father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, as well as one's own life. Clearly \mise“\ means "hate" when the issue is between Christ and the dearest things of life as happens when the choice is between martyrdom and apostasy. In that case one keeps his soul for eternal life by losing his life (\psuchˆ\, each time) here. That is the way to "guard" (\phulaxei\) life by being true to Christ. This is the second paradox to show Christ's philosophy of life.

rwp@John:19:12 @{Sought} (\ezˆtei\). Imperfect active, "kept on seeking," "made renewed efforts to release him." He was afraid to act boldly against the will of the Jews. {If thou release this man} (\ean touton apolusˆis\). Condition of third class, a direct threat to Pilate. He knew all the time that the Sanhedrin might tell Caesar on him. {Thou art not Caesar's friend} (\ouk ei philos tou kaisaros\). Later to Vespasian this was an official title, here simply a daring threat to Pilate. {Speaketh against Caesar} (\antilegei t“i kaisari\). Caesar brooks no rival. Jesus had allowed himself to be acclaimed king of Israel in the Triumphal Entry (John:12:13; strkjv@Mark:11:10; strkjv@Luke:19:38|). The Sanhedrin have caught Pilate in their toils.

rwp@Luke:5:39 @{The old is good} (\Hosea:palaios chrˆstos estin\). Songs:the best MSS. rather that \chrˆstoteros\, comparative (better). Westcott and Hort wrongly bracket the whole verse, though occurring in Aleph, B C L and most of the old documents. It is absent in D and some of the old Latin MSS. It is the philosophy of the obscurantist, that is here pictured by Christ. "The prejudiced person will not even try the new, or admit that it has any merits. He knows that the old is pleasant, and suits him; and that is enough; he is not going to change" (Plummer). This is Christ's picture of the reactionary Pharisees.

rwp@Luke:15:2 @{Both... and} (\te... kai\). United in the complaint. {Murmured} (\diegogguzon\). Imperfect active of \diagogguz“\, late Greek compound in the LXX and Byzantine writers. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:7|. The force of \dia\ here is probably between or among themselves. It spread (imperfect tense) whenever these two classes came in contact with Jesus. As the publicans and the sinners were drawing near to Jesus just in that proportion the Pharisees and the scribes increased their murmurings. The social breach is here an open yawning chasm. {This man} (\houtos\). A contemptuous sneer in the use of the pronoun. They spoke out openly and probably pointed at Jesus. {Receiveth} (\prosdechetai\). Present middle indicative of the common verb \prosdechomai\. In strkjv@12:36| we had it for expecting, here it is to give access to oneself, to welcome like \hupedexato\ of Martha's welcome to Jesus (Luke:10:38|). The charge here is that this is the habit of Jesus. He shows no sense of social superiority to these outcasts (like the Hindu "untouchables" in India). {And eateth with them} (\kai sunesthiei autois\). Associative instrumental case (\autois\) after \sun-\ in composition. This is an old charge (Luke:5:30|) and a much more serious breach from the standpoint of the Pharisees. The implication is that Jesus prefers these outcasts to the respectable classes (the Pharisees and the scribes) because he is like them in character and tastes, even with the harlots. There was a sting in the charge that he was the "friend" (\philos\) of publicans and sinners (Luke:7:34|).

rwp@Luke:16:14 @{Who were lovers of money} (\philarguroi huparchontes\). Literally, being lovers of money. \Philarguroi\ is an old word, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:2|. It is from \philos\ and \arguros\. {Heard} (\ˆkouon\). Imperfect active, were listening (all the while Jesus was talking to the disciples (verses 1-13|). {And they scoffed at him} (\kai exemuktˆrizon\). Imperfect active again of \ekmuktˆriz“\. LXX where late writers use simple verb. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:23:35|. It means to turn out or up the nose at one, to sneer, to scoff. The Romans had a phrase, _naso adunco suspendere_, to hang on the hooked nose (the subject of ridicule). These money-loving Pharisees were quick to see that the words of Jesus about the wise use of money applied to them. They had stood without comment the three parables aimed directly at them (the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son). But now they do not remain quiet while they hear the fourth parable spoken to the disciples. No words were apparently spoken, but their eyes, noses, faces were eloquent with a fine disdain.

rwp@Mark:2:19 @{The sons of the bridechamber} (\hoi huioi tou numph“nos\). Not merely the groomsmen, but the guests also, the \paranymphs\ (\paranumphoi\ of the old Greek). Jesus here adopts the Baptist's own metaphor (John:3:29|), changing the friend of the bridegroom (\ho philos tou numphiou\) to sons of the bridechamber. Jesus identifies himself with the bridegroom of the O.T. (Hosea:2:21|), God in his covenant relation with Israel (Swete). Mourning does not suit the wedding feast. Mark, Matthew, and Luke all give the three parables (bridegroom, unfulled cloth, new wineskins) illustrating and defending the conduct of Jesus in feasting with Levi on a Jewish fast-day. strkjv@Luke:5:36| calls these parables. Jesus here seems iconoclastic to the ecclesiastics and revolutionary in emphasis on the spiritual instead of the ritualistic and ceremonial.

rwp@Mark:6:14 @{Heard} (\ˆkousen\). This tour of Galilee by the disciples in pairs wakened all Galilee, for the name of Jesus thus became known (\phaneron\) or known till even Herod heard of it in the palace. "A palace is late in hearing spiritual news" (Bengel). {Therefore do these powers work in him} (\dia touto energousin hai dunameis en aut“i\). "A snatch of Herod's theology and philosophy" (Morison). John wrought no miracles (John:10:41|), but if he had risen from the dead perhaps he could. Songs:Herod may have argued. "Herod's superstition and his guilty conscience raised this ghost to plague him" (Gould). Our word _energy_ is this same Greek word here used (\energousin\). It means at work. Miraculous powers were at work in Jesus whatever the explanation. This all agreed, but they differed widely as to his personality, whether Elijah or another of the prophets or John the Baptist. Herod was at first much perplexed (\diˆporei\, strkjv@Luke:9:7| and strkjv@Mark:6:20|).

rwp@Mark:8:34 @{And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples} (\kai proskalesamenos ton ochlon sun tois mathˆtais autou\). Mark alone notes the unexpected presence of a crowd up here near Caesarea Philippi in heathen territory. In the presence of this crowd Jesus explains his philosophy of life and death which is in direct contrast with that offered by Peter and evidently shared by the disciples and the people. Songs:Jesus gives this profound view of life and death to them all. {Deny himself} (\aparnˆsasth“ heauton\). Say no to himself, a difficult thing to do. Note reflexive along with the middle voice. Ingressive first aorist imperative. See on ¯Matthew:16:24| about taking up the Cross. The shadow of Christ's Cross was already on him (Mark:8:31|) and one faces everyone.

rwp@Matthew:11:19 @{Wisdom is justified by her works} (\edikai“thˆ apo t“n erg“n autˆs\). A timeless aorist passive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 836f.). The word "justified" means "set right" Luke (Luke:7:35|) has "by all her children" as some MSS. have here to make Matthew like Luke. These words are difficult, but understandable. God's wisdom has planned the different conduct of both John and Jesus. He does not wish all to be just alike in everything. "This generation" (verse 16|) is childish, not childlike, and full of whimsical inconsistencies in their faultfinding. They exaggerate in each case. John did not have a demon and Jesus was not a glutton or a winebibber. "And, worse than either, for \philos\ is used in a sinister sense and implies that Jesus was the comrade of the worst characters, and like them in conduct. A malicious nickname at first, it is now a name of honour: the sinner's lover" (Bruce). Cf. strkjv@Luke:15:2|. The plan of God is justified by results.

rwp@Matthew:27:42 @{He saved others; himself he cannot save} (\allous es“sen; heauton ou dunatai s“sai\). The sarcasm is true, though they do not know its full significance. If he had saved himself now, he could not have saved any one. The paradox is precisely the philosophy of life proclaimed by Jesus himself (Matthew:10:39|). {Let him now come down} (\katabat“ nun\). Now that he is a condemned criminal nailed to the Cross with the claim of being "the King of Israel" (the Jews) over his head. Their spiteful assertion that they would then believe upon Jesus (\ep' auton\) is plainly untrue. They would have shifted their ground and invented some other excuse. When Jesus wrought his greatest miracles, they wanted "a sign from heaven." These "pious scoffers" (Bruce) are like many today who make factitious and arbitrary demands of Christ whose character and power and deity are plain to all whose eyes are not blinded by the god of this world. Christ will not give new proofs to the blind in heart.

rwp@Philippians:1:12 @{The things which happened unto me} (\ta kat' eme\). "The things concerning me" = "my affairs" as common in Josephus. {Have fallen out rather} (\mallon elˆluthen\). "Have come rather." Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\. {Unto the progress} (\eis prokopˆn\). Late word from \prokopt“\, common verb, to cut or strike forward, but this late substantive does not occur in classical Greek. It is a technical term in Stoic philosophy for "progress toward wisdom" and it appears also in the papyri and the LXX. In N.T. only here, verse 25; strkjv@1Timothy:4:15|.

rwp@Philippians:4:8 @{Finally} (\to loipon\). See on ¯3:1|. {Whatsoever} (\hosa\). Thus he introduces six adjectives picturing Christian ideals, old-fashioned and familiar words not necessarily from any philosophic list of moral excellencies Stoic or otherwise. Without these no ideals can exist. They are pertinent now when so much filth is flaunted before the world in books, magazines and moving-pictures under the name of realism (the slime of the gutter and the cess-pool). {Honourable} (\semna\). Old word from \seb“\, to worship, revere. Songs:revered, venerated (1Timothy:3:8|). {Pure} (\hagna\). Old word for all sorts of purity. There are clean things, thoughts, words, deeds. {Lovely} (\prosphilˆ\). Old word, here only in N.T., from \pros\ and \phile“\, pleasing, winsome. {Of good report} (\euphˆma\. Old word, only here in N.T., from \eu\ and \phˆmˆ\, fair-speaking, attractive. {If there be any} (\ei tis\). Paul changes the construction from \hosa\ (whatsoever) to a condition of the first class, as in strkjv@2:1|, with two substantives. {Virtue} (\aretˆ\). Old word, possibly from \aresk“\, to please, used very often in a variety of senses by the ancients for any mental excellence or moral quality or physical power. Its very vagueness perhaps explains its rarity in the N.T., only four times (Phillipians:4:8; strkjv@1Peter:2:9; strkjv@2Peter:1:3,5|). It is common in the papyri, but probably Paul is using it in the sense found in the LXX (Isaiah:42:12; strkjv@43:21|) of God's splendour and might (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 95) in connection with "praise" (\epainos\) as here or even meaning praise. {Think on these things} (\tauta logizesthe\). Present middle imperative for habit of thought. We are responsible for our thoughts and can hold them to high and holy ideals.

rwp@Romans:12:10 @{In love of the brethren} (\tˆi philadelphiƒi\). Late word for brotherly love for which see strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:9|. {Tenderly affectioned} (\philostorgoi\). Old compound adjective from \philos\ and \storgˆ\ (mutual love of parents and children), here alone in N.T.

rwp@Romans:12:13 @{Communicating} (\koin“nountes\). "Contributing." From \koin“ne“\ for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:9:13|. Paul had raised a great collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. {Given to hospitality} (\tˆn philoxenian di“kontes\). "Pursuing (as if in a chase or hunt) hospitality" (\philoxenia\, old word from \philoxenos\, fond of strangers, \philos\ and \xenos\ as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:2|). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:2|. See strkjv@2Corinthians:3:1|. They were to pursue (\di“k“\) hospitality as their enemies pursued (\di“kontas\) them.

rwp@Romans:15:20 @{Yea} (\hout“s de\). "And so," introducing a limitation to the preceding statement. {Making it my aim} (\philotimoumenon\). Present middle participle (accusative case agreeing with \me\) of \philotimeomai\, old verb, to be fond of honour (\philos, timˆ\). In N.T. only here and strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:11; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:9|. A noble word in itself, quite different in aim from the Latin word for {ambition} (\ambio\, to go on both sides to carry one's point). {Not where} (\ouch hopou\). Paul was a pioneer preacher pushing on to new fields after the manner of Daniel Boone in Kentucky. {That I might now build upon another man's foundation} (\hina mˆ ep' allotrion themelion oikodom“\). For \allotrios\ (not \allos\) see strkjv@14:4|. For \themelion\, see strkjv@Luke:6:48f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:11|. This noble ambition of Paul's is not within the range of some ministers who can only build on another's foundation as Apollos did in Corinth. But the pioneer preacher and missionary has a dignity and glory all his own.

rwp@Titus:1:8 @{A lover of good} (\philagathon\). Late double compound (\philos, agathos\). See Wisdom strkjv@7:22. Here only in N.T. Just (\dikaion\), holy (\hosion\) not in strkjv@1Timothy:3|. {Temperate} (\egkratˆ\). Old and common adjective (\en, kratos\, strength), having power over, controlling, here only in N.T. Picture of self-control.

rwp@Titus:2:4 @{That they may train} (\hina s“phroniz“sin\). Purpose clause, \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \s“phroniz“\, old verb (from \s“phr“n\, sound in mind, \saos, phrˆn\, as in this verse), to make sane, to restore to one's senses, to discipline, only here in N.T. {To love their husbands} (\philandrous einai\). Predicate accusative with \einai\ of old adjective \philandros\ (\philos, anˆr\, fond of one's husband), only here in N.T. \Anˆr\ means man, of course, as well as husband, but only husband here, not "fond of men" (other men than their own). {To love their children} (\philoteknous\). Another old compound, here only in N.T. This exhortation is still needed where some married women prefer poodle-dogs to children.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 30 20:16:18 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020